HP 



■hi 



■Hi 



'l! ! ■ 



HliiliH 



■II 






lili;.! 



iHliUUM 






I Hi ■ 



F 



■i 



■■■MAI 

HI 

IniiH 

HI B 

■ < III ' ' ■ I . ; ' 1 1 

I II 11111 

HI 

v I ' 

i u 

UihIIh 

HHi 

J— 

IlliiH 

HI 

HH 

■V 






i^/". 



i 




<t 



I 



A 






(/ 



j 




<f*> 









r 



THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 



MR. EGMONT HAKE'S WORKS 

SUFFERING LONDON. 

PARIS ORIGINALS. 

THE STORY OF CHINESE GORDON. 



GENERAL GORDON S JOURNALS DURING THE TAEPING 
REBELLION. 

FLATTERING TALES. 

THE UNEMPLOYED PROBLEM. 

FREE TRADE IN CAPITAL. BY A. EGMONT HAKE 
AND O. E. WESSLAU. 



THE COMING 
INDIVIDUALISM 



BY 



... 



A. EGMONT HAKE 



AND 



O. E. WESSLAU 



WESTMINSTER 

ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE AND CO. 

1895 




I 2. S^ 1 



£~0\6 



Edinburgh : T. and A, Constable, Printers to Her Majesty 





5p» 


fO' 


o 





«^T 


£- 


r? 




<P 


m 


^. 


H 


J 


ci 


"T. 


(i 


■A. 


jfiJ 




5 









p\ 



TO 

ROBERT ARMSTRONG YERBURGH, ESQ., M.P., 

President of the Agricultural Banks Association. 

My dear Yerburgh, 

In inscribing this our book to you, my colleague and I give 
expression to a feeling which has sustained us from the moment we 
began our work. As with orators, so with authors. The con- 
viction of having an audience sympathetic enough to appreciate at 
least their motives, encourages and emboldens. Attacking, as we 
have done, some of the most powerful and misery-dealing prejudices, 
and unable to count upon that friendly reception and unbiassed criti- 
cism afforded to those who swim with the current, it has been to us a 
source of strength to know that you at least will give a hearing 
to pleadings which are based on patriotism and justice to suffering 
humanity. 

It is true that the cause of Individualism can at this moment count 
upon a far larger circle of sympathisers than was the case several 
years ago, when we began to call public attention to the first practical 
steps towards its triumph, but we naturally look upon you as their 
true exponent. Your exertions on behalf of our financially oppressed 
agricultural classes, and the unfortunate victims of our abominable 
usury system, we have considered to be a guarantee that you will 
favourably weigh arguments which the prejudices of most men would 
cause them to neglect. 

We willingly confess that in this Dedication we have been actuated 
by the hope that your name on the first page would attract the atten- 
tion of the members of that assembly which, of all bodies of men in the 
world, exercises the greatest influence over the Empire, and over the 
Jiuman race — the Imperial Parliament, 



vi THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

For, on the attention vouchsafed by Members of Parliament to this 
our contribution to the cause of Individualism, its usefulness will 
largely depend. 

If the way in which we have at times taken the names of the poli- 
tical parties in vain should appear to militate against this conviction, 
we trust that ijou and your friends will understand that, if we have 
not sided with any party, it is not because we blame any of them, but 
because we appeal to them all. — Ever yours, 

A. EGMONT HAKE. 



CONTENT S 

CHAPTER I 

THE MODERN ECONOMIC IMBROGLIO 

PAGE 

The close of a historical period at hand — Failure of previous 
Empires to solve the Labour Question — The feature of 
unattached labourers — The interruption of the progression 
on Individualist lines — Unsuspected causes — Unforeseen 
events — The influence of sentimental writers — Sentiment 
an anomaly in Economy — The present system mistaken for 
an Individualistic one — Amazing blindness to artificial 
causes of poverty — Conclusions drawn from stagnation in 
trade — Effects of Collectivism attributed to Individualism 
— The Factory Acts as the Socialistic wedge — The Con- 
servatives' grudge against Political Economy — The volte face 
of the Liberal Party — The influence of Collectivism on 
Trades Unions — The temptation of politicians to shun the 
most important questions, 1 

CHAPTER II 

ESSENCE OF EXACT POLITICAL ECONOMY 

The entanglement of Political Economy with other Sciences — 
The yielding of modern economists to the desire for 
popularity — Domestic Economy versus Political Economy — 
Our present system a hybrid one — A free system the most 
productive one — Attempts to discredit Adam Smith's 
postulates — The origin of Division of Labour — The necessity 
of a value-measure in exchanges — Coin, the natural result 
of evolutions — The two functions of Coin — The real meaning 
of the term Capital — The solidarity of Capital and Labour 
— The solidarity of nations, ...... 31 



viii THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

CHAPTER III 

THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 

PAGE 

The influence of the French Revolution — Mistakes of the old 
governments — Democratic form of government the object of 
the first reformers — Universal faith in individual liberty — 
Good use made of liberty in the United Kingdom — Events 
in Great Britain misunderstood on the Continent — The 
popular yearning for a fatherly government — Desire 
to render a fatherly government powerful at the expense 
of individual liberty — Errors of the French Democracy 
— The Italian Democracy — The Norwegian Democracy 
— Democracy in the United States — Factory system a 
calamity — American duties an obstacle to industry — 
Currency legislation the greater evil — The allurements 
of the paper currency system — The mistakes of the Silver 
Bills — American Bank Legislation — Bank Panic, 1838 — 
Mistakes of English Democracy — Merchandise Marks Act 
— Drink Legislation — Interference with trade — Democracy 
England's hope, 59 

CHAPTER IV 

THE HAVEN OF SOCIALISM 

No definition of Socialism — Childish views of Socialists — Dreams 
of a perfect government and a perfect people — Difficulties 
in the division of labour — Where would the wealth come 
from ? — Necessity of coercive power — Post Office and 
Foreign Railways as examples of Socialism — Difficulties 
of distributing — Return to a division into two classes — 
Effects of private ownership in products — Anomalies in 
Looking Backward — Impossibility of checking the officials 
— Colonies of a Socialistic State — Dangers of Socialistic 
attempts, 98 



CONTENTS ix 

CHAPTER V 

IMPERIAL FREE TRADE 

PAGE 

Imperial Free Trade not clamoured for — Doubts about Free 
Trade — Protected industries no industries — Protection ap- 
plied to gold mining — Protected industries contribute no- 
thing to the taxes — The balance of imports and exports — 
Increased cost of production — Reduced price of sale — Pro- 
tection duties in new countries — The excuse of no capital — 
Effect on wages — Effect on British trade — Effect on Colonial 
manufacture — Indian cotton duties — Free Trade in India — 
The Lancashire reasoning — Prosperity in India the problem 
— State-produced poverty — Usury the cause of poverty — 
Protection equal to slavery — Discontent in Canada,, . . 124 

CHAPTER VI 

FREE COMPETITION IN THE SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO 
LABOUR 

Influence of the politicians — The terms money and currency to 
be avoided — Credit as medium of exchange — Indirect credit 
— Origin of Banking — Insurmountable obstacles to the use 
of coin — Example — Circulating in proportion to business — 
Proportion between coin and credit transactions in London 
— The gold supply of the world remains level — Example 
of a Spanish loan — Example of paper issue — State loans a 
common mistake — Development of modern banking — Pre- 
vailing ignorance of its mission — Peel's mistake — Leading 
features of the Bank Act — No distributing banks in Eng- 
land — The economic laws of note circulation — Contrasts in 
methods — The French Banquiers — Loss of Capital — Sever- 
ance of Capital and Labour — Choice between panic and 
stagnation — Prejudices against Rational Banking — Proofs 
of the safety of free note issuing — Bank notes safe even 
after a failure — Result of experience, . . . .153 

b 



x THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

CHAPTER VII 

FREE TRADE IN DRINK 

PAGE 

Drunkenness an effect, not a cause — Public-house monopoly — 
Monopoly and adulteration — Impotence of inspection — 
Irresponsible inspectors — The theory of government pro- 
tection against temptation — Temptations stronger than the 
temptation to drink — Sobriety in foreign countries — The 
effect of easy access to drink — Less public-houses and 
more drunkenness — Reform to be gradual — Confused ideas 
of liberty — Effectiveness of severe punishments, . . 193 

CHAPTER VIII 

FREE TRADE IN AMUSEMENTS 

Powerful influence of amusements — Remedies against symptoms 
instead of causes — Censors guided by public opinion — 
Decency mistaken for morality — Ascetic and natural 
morality — Immorality in France — Effects of education — 
The nude in art — County Councils as censors — Inspection 
inefficient — Monopoly resorted to — Examples of beneficial 
effects of liberty — Monopoly degrading the stage — Want of 
theatres in London — Fear of abuse groundless — Healthy 
influence on morals from liberty — What class would abuse 
liberty — Performances in public-houses — Hidden dens of 
debauchery — Unsatisfactory state of the social question — 
Mistakes of the purists— Gradual development, '. . 216 

CHAPTER IX 

FREE TRADE IN LAND 

The land question delayed by emigration — Unexpected turn in 
the development of the Colonies — Stimulants to prosperity 
producing depression — The land system blamed — Henry 
George ignores banking — Sentimental argument — State 



CONTENTS xi 



ownership of land — Tax-collectors and tax-payers natural 
opponents — Wealth in the hands of Government — State- 
dispensed wealth ruinous — Fall of Rome — The State must 
charge market values — Nationalisation of land would main- 
tain competition — Disadvantages of private ownership in 
land — The argument of the unearned increment — The use 
of wealth by the wealthy — Similarity of profits and the 
unearned increment — A plan for realising the objects of 
the Collectivists — Creation of Small Holdings — La petite 
culture prevented by the Bank Act of 1844 — Legislation by 
landlords for landlords — Benefits from the feudal system — 
Safeguarded proprietorship necessary for Small Holders — 
Undue advantages to buyers mean injustice to sellers — 
Free Trade in Land not incompatible with the present 
position of the aristocracy — Ethical and religious grounds 
for an Individualist system, . . . . . . 247 



CHAPTER X 

THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE EMPIRE 

Ancient origin of modern diplomacy — Diplomacy regardless of 
the well-being of the nations — The protest of the Peace 
Party against old forms of Foreign Policy — Change of cir- 
cumstances since Cobden's time — Economic reasons for the 
maintenance of the Empire — British rule justified — The 
haziness of the Imperial Idea — Principles which should 
underlie an Imperial Constitution — The love of Individual 
Libertyin the British race — Absurd misrepresentations of In- 
dividual Liberty — The power of majorities not indispensable 
except in upholding liberty — Examples of success of the 
Voluntary System — Compulsion unnecessary with regard 
to useful institutions — How an Imperial Constitution based 
on liberty would remove all grounds for secession, . . 284 

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. By Francis Fletcher- 
Vane, 309 



THE MODERN ECONOMIC IMBROGLIO 

To those who are at all able to gauge the state of the 
political atmosphere in this country, and throughout the 
Empire, signs of coming fundamental changes are manifest. 
Whether we reason from historical experience, or from 
palpable actualities, we must come to the conclusion that 
the close of a historical period is at hand. 

The latter part of our century will be noted for the rapid 
succession of events. A new idea, a popular movement, in 
our time arises, spreads, and matures into an accomplished 
fact within a few years. In face, therefore, of potent factors 
working towards complete changes at the very base of our 
civilisation, it would be unpardonable lethargy on the part 
of any one who takes a pride in our nation, or who has a 
stake in the country, to neglect the manifold warnings which 
daily events proffer. When read aright, these warnings 
render it evident that there is no time to be lost if the issue 
of the impending crisis is to be controlled. What will be 
the nature of the coming change the history of the past 
may to some extent indicate ; but what the new historical 
period upon which we are about to enter will bring is as yet 
a mystery. All we may hope is that our future destiny will 
depend mainly on ourselves. 

The coming crisis involves the solution of a problem, 
which now confronts the British people, as it has confronted 

A 



% THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

the citizens of previous States, and now baffles modern 
Empires and Republics alike. It may be called the Labour 
question, or the Economic question. Some call it the 
Social question, meaning, however, the question of the 
relations between Capital and Labour. Never, so far, has it 
been solved ; and more than one Empire in attempting its 
solution has paid the penalty of failure in destruction. 

One of the proverbial repetitions of history is this : A 
State is founded by a powerful tribe, an energetic oligarchy, 
a crafty priesthood, or settlers from a more civilised State. 
To begin with, there is no Labour question at all. The work 
is performed by slaves who, being the residue of a conquered 
race, remain resigned to their fate ; all the more so as the 
young State is replete with energetic warriors elated by 
recent victory. Or, the chief production of the nation is 
performed by a peasantry which, while it is subjected to 
feudal chiefs, keeps a limited number of domestic slaves, 
who have no intercourse among themselves, and who have 
but small reason to complain of their masters 1 treatment. 
The peasantry do not dream of objecting to new feudal chiefs 
when these have defeated the old ones. The proletariat is 
small, and made up of despised pariahs. As the new State 
grows in wealth and power, the working-class element gradu- 
ally acquires more importance. The slaves by ministering to 
the masters' pleasures, and being admitted to their intimacy, 
as domestic servants, acquire part of their culture. They 
become more enlightened, more strong-minded, and, while 
they lose some of their old respect for their masters, they 
become more ambitious for themselves. Simultaneously the 
unemployed proletariat increases. A certain percentage of 
the patricians, through vice and crime, falls into the ranks of 
the proletariat. A large class of artisans and dealers arises, 
a small number of which acquire wealth, while the majority 



THE MODERN ECONOMIC IMBROGLIO 3 

suffer from increased penury. Government extortions, in 
the shape of taxes and monopolies, and private robbery in 
the form of a highly developed usury system, tend to make 
the rich richer and the poor poorer. The ruined middle 
class, the proletariat, and the slaves, if any, combine to 
constitute a political factor, of which the political parties 
are not slow to avail themselves. Having acquired political 
influence, the power of the masses grows, and they assume 
the habit of demanding more and more privileges from the 
political party they serve. Under such circumstances, the 
subjection of the proletariat, and the discipline of the slaves, 
gradually disappear. Production becomes neglected, and 
the government in power is expected to provide for the now 
ever-growing masses of dependents. This they, finally, fail 
to do. The discontented elements appeal to some foreign 
State less corrupt, and therefore more powerful, with the 
usual result that the old State is absorbed in a new. 

Thus, the only solution of the Labour question was to 
keep the workers in subjection, and when this failed, the 
State was doomed. The ancient legislators never suspected 
that there could be any other organisation than a compul- 
sory one ; and many politicians in most countries up to this 
day in their inmost hearts look upon the slavery of the 
workers under the State as that solution of the Labour 
question which alone can give stability to modern Powers. 

The evolutions of the British Empire have up to date 
been similar to those of the Empires of the past, with such 
differences, of course, as are due to the different stages of 
civilisation. The most important of these differences is the 
rapid growth of what we now call the labouring-class, that 
is to say, the people who are not masters, or the servants of 
masters, who are not peasants or labourers legally or 
incidentally attached to the ground, who are not craftsmen 



4 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

or inmates of craftsmen's households. This rapid growth of 
the unattached labourers is the result partly of the develop- 
ment of industry assisted by machinery, and partly of the 
old cause, the growth of capital among the few, and its 
consequently increased power. 

The number of unattached labourers did not grow so fast 
in the ancient States as it has done in England. In many 
continental States the growth of the unattached masses of 
labourers has been artificially accelerated. In these the 
masses consisted, and still consist, largely of the peasantry, 
and the unattached labourer was looked upon as an abnormal 
excrescence. His condition was regarded as a case of 
individual misfortune, often owing to his own fault. Even 
he himself was slow to resign himself to the idea that his 
condition was a normal one, and frequently entertained a 
hope of one day slipping into his proper place in society. 
Such being the case, the proletariat of the continent had in 
the beginning of the century hardly any political signifi- 
cance. But, jealous of the development of British industry, 
the continental governments unfortunately took it into their 
heads to foster large capitalist industries by means of 
Protective Duties. Having thus produced by artificial 
means those same causes which social development had 
produced in England, they reaped similar results, namely, 
rapidly-growing masses of unattached labourers. The pro- 
cess being artificial, the circumstances on the continent were 
not suitable to such a development. The unattached 
labourers had a strong tendency to degenerate into a 
proletariat. The governments have thus, Frankenstein-like, 
created a monster which now threatens soon to be beyond 
their control. 

In England the unattached labourers were too numerous, 
were in too great demand, and were in possession of too 



THE MODERN ECONOMIC IMBROGLIO 5 

much political liberty, to allow themselves to be regarded as 
otherwise than normal citizens. They were unwilling to 
consider their position as either transitory or exceptional, 
but claimed to live rational and happy lives as labourers, 
and to rear families to live in the same way. Their political 
aim was not so much to escape from poverty by the plunder 
of the wealthy classes as to enjoy a prosperous trade and 
good wages. In consequence of their number, their high 
character, and their moderation, they acquired political 
power in a more rational and steady fashion than ever has 
been accomplished by the labourers of any other nation. 

Had the economically sound development continued 
which was inaugurated in the forties by the abolition of 
the Corn Laws and the curtailment of the monopoly of the 
Bank of England, Parliament would, as will be shown later 
on, not at this day be confronted by the Labour question. 
Indeed, when the Free Trade Reformers gave expression to the 
most sanguine views regarding the prosperity and content- 
ment which would naturally follow the gradual and rational 
extension of individual liberty, these sanguine expectations 
seemed at first likely to be realised. Trade, industry, and 
shipping grew at a rate which outstripped the boldest 
predictions. Tens of thousands of working men developed 
from penniless labourers into successful employers. A large 
number of industries took gigantic proportions, and the 
demand for workers became intense. There was, therefore, 
no room for discontent: for the lot of the labourers in 
the manufacturing districts had improved enormously, and 
the prospects of the honest and industrious working man 
were of the brightest. England presented during the 
twenty-five years which followed the abolition of the Corn 
Laws a spectacle such as had never been witnessed in any 
State of the past. There was then legitimate ground for 



6 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

hoping that our Empire would escape the fatal riddle of 
the Sphinx of history. The Labour question seemed to be 
solving itself, simply because the British Parliament had, 
by adopting a policy of individual liberty, given that 
question for the first time in the world an opportunity of 
doing so. 

But the hopes of the Individualists were not realised. 
Unsuspected causes were at work ; unforeseen events arose : 
and the brilliant prospect became clouded. The Labour 
question, first raised as a political bogey, soon confronted 
our legislators in the menacing shape in which it had 
heralded the downfall of previous Empires. 

It is because those unsuspected causes and unforeseen 
events to which we owe the present acute state of the 
Labour question failed to be noticed and understood by 
political leaders, and more so by our writers on social and 
economic questions, that the solution of the Labour problem 
is now sought for in a direction which is not only hopeless 
and absurd but extremely dangerous. A host of sentimental 
writers, with a superficial knowledge of economy, with no 
experience of practical politics, and with not the slightest 
inkling of that leading feature of our civilisation, commerce, 
took the Labour problem for their theme, and for the 
pretext of the making of many books. Completely ignorant 
of the actual causes which had arrested the labourers'* pro- 
gress towards economic independence, they fancied they had 
found in \,he stagnation and retrogression which set in about 
1874 absolute confirmation of the spurious doctrines of Karl 
Marx, Lassalle, and other Socialistic writers. 

The lowering of wages, the growing numbers of the 
unemployed, and the horrors of the Sweating system, side 
by side with ever-accumulating fortunes, became intoler- 
able to the masses of workers who, by improved Educa- 



THE MODERN ECONOMIC IMBROGLIO 7 

tion, an enormous development of the Press, and by the 
extension of the Franchise, had formulated high aspirations, 
and acquired the power to realise them. The position 
became alarming, and the capitalist classes developed a 
strong yearning for the solution of the Labour problem. 
The new school of sentimental Sociologists, having the 
double object of allaying the fears of the capitalists and of 
enlisting the sympathies of powerful Demos, wrote down to 
the level of the prevailing prejudices, and called their 
pseudo-scientific dissertations the New Economics. 

Without any investigation of actualities, they have 
endorsed the postulates of the continental Socialist writers, 
that under a system of individual freedom and free contract 
the rich are bound to become richer and the poor to become 
poorer, thus debarring themselves from seeking the solution 
of the Labour problem in any other than the Collectivist 
direction. They, therefore, naturally look upon the Social- 
istic tendencies as indications of progress, and some such 
State as is described in Bellamy's fantastic and illogical book 
— in reality an unconscious burlesque on Socialism — as the 
final goal of human development. They would fain engraft 
the Socialistic movement upon all previous progress of our 
race, and would have us regard the whole as a series of 
social evolutions. They are anxious to convey the impres- 
sion that they are nothing if not scientific: hence their 
evolutionary theories. As writers on religious subjects have 
done before them, they apply the methods of the biologists 
to subjects to which those methods are utterly inapplicable, 
and then abuse the biologists because these cannot see the 
wonderful new light so persistently held up to them. 

Though the researches and discoveries of men like Mr. 
Herbert Spencer and Professor Huxley have made these 
pseudo-religious and pseudo-economic works possible, these 



8 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

scientists are roughly handled, and twitted with want of logic 
because they maintain the opinion that our present social 
system is unsatisfactory, and that complete Socialism would 
be worse. 

In trying to make converts to their views, these votaries 
of the New Economics do not rely on exact Political Eco- 
nomy and rational Sociology, but branch off into biology, 
ethics, philosophy, and religion. They even insist upon all 
politico-economic questions being treated from a religious 
point of view. To avoid the reductio ad absurdum, they 
deal in impalpable abstractions and wide generalities, and 
hardly ever condescend to heed exact details or hard facts. 

Nor do they ever check off their conclusions against indus- 
trial, commercial, or financial actualities. If they did, they 
could not fail to see how absurd it is to speak about the 
ethical, religious, or moral aspect of such economic ques- 
tions as are now mostly debated all over the world, and on 
which no one can deny that the happiness of the working 
classes depends. They might as well ask whether it is 
moral or Christian that the squares on the two sides of a 
rectangular triangle should be equal to the square of the 
third side. 

Such questions as to whether the importation of such 
goods as can be purchased cheaper abroad than at home is an 
advantage or a disadvantage to the labouring population ; 
whether government bounties to sugar-refiners are useful or 
hurtful to sugar-refining in general ; whether the usurer 
should be restricted in his rate of interest, or allowed to 
charge as much as he can ; whether government should 
supervise banks or leave them free ; whether State loans for 
productive or other ^purposes are profitable or ruinous to 
the masses ; whether mono-metallism or bi-metallism is pro- 
ductive of the highest wages — all these questions, and hun- 



THE MODERN ECONOMIC IMBROGLIO 9 

dreds more, it is the mission of economic science to answer 
as exactly as Euclid solves his geometrical problems. 

The suggestion of tackling such subjects from a religious 
standpoint can have no meaning for a logical mind. Our 
sentimental Sociologists are alone capable of attempt- 
ing it. The result has often been that solutions chosen 
at the promptings of sentiment have brought about, when 
applied, the very contrary to that aimed at. An example 
will make our meaning clearer. That charming writer 
but impossible economist, Mr. Ruskin, would tell us that 
the New Economics demand that each employer should 
pay his labourer, not according to the market-value of 
labour, but enough to enable him to live happily and com- 
fortably. The terrible drawbacks of such methods Mr. 
Ruskin would not condescend to consider. The develop- 
ment of a demoralising system of favouritism, on the one 
hand, and the speedy collapse of industry, with utter destitu- 
tion for all labourers, on the other, which his system would 
bring about, would take him completely by surprise. To be 
guided by your own sentiment, and not by the real good of 
the class you wish to benefit, is to be kind in order to be 
cruel. 

Our sentimentalists cannot do without religion as a factor 
in their economics. They take for granted that in these 
latter days people have become more religious, that a wave 
of religious intensity is passing over the world, of which 
the Socialistic tendencies of to-day are the outcome. It 
is quite possible that humanity is becoming more religious 
and more moral, but the reasons these New Economists 
advance in support of this opinion point very much in the 
other direction. What are the real features in the Socialistic 
tendencies? The masses, having secured the balance of 
power, are resolved to use it for their own good, regardless 



10 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

of the cost to the classes. Agitators and politicians ad- 
vocate plausible but ruinous measures for their own political 
promotion. The capitalists, alarmed by the threatening 
attitude of the labourers, seek in State Socialism the means 
of appeasing them. Members of Parliament and County 
Councillors unblushingly purchase popularity by lavishing 
other people's money. What part has religion in all this ? 
The fact that the Roman Catholic Church begins to side 
with the Socialist masses after her strenuous efforts to 
regain her temporal power through the Royalists and the 
Conservatives can hardly be called a religious evolution. 
The increasing selfishness of the Trades Unions, the spread 
of the Sweating System, the dwindling of contributions to 
the hospitals, the persecution of the Negroes in the United 
States and of the Jews in Northern Europe, the corruption 
of the financial world, the insidious introduction of im- 
morality into the higher forms of literature, the growing 
cynicism and pessimism throughout society — all this, surely, 
indicates religious decay rather than an increased influence 
of religion. 

The so-called New Economists are losing themselves in a 
maze of their own making, because they have confused 
metaphors with realities. Just as there are many analogies 
between a flower and a lovely woman, so there are many 
analogies between the development of the physical world and 
social life. From a literary point of view, it is legitimate 
enough to talk about social evolutions, and to adopt the 
phraseology of the biologists when dealing with social and 
economic problems may be conducive to clearness, in view of 
the fact that the two sciences — Sociology and Economy — 
being the newest ones, have had to borrow their terminology 
from other sciences. These analogies and this community 
of terms have deluded the New Economists into the 



THE MODERN ECONOMIC IMBROGLIO 11 

quixotic attempt of transmuting Economy into a branch of 
Biology. 

To render this process at all intelligible they have found 
it absolutely necessary to pre-suppose that our present state 
of civilisation, with all its deplorable features, is a natural 
and inevitable outcome of the immutable conditions of 
progress on Individualistic lines. The New Economists 
insist upon this because it is the key-stone of their system of 
reasoning. In order to utterly explode their wonderful 
fabric of truths, half-truths, and fallacies, it will therefore 
suffice to shatter this, their chief postulate. When it is 
shown, as we intend to do, that all the poverty and misery 
permeating the civilised States — except such as is deliberately 
self-inflicted or the result of ill-health — are due to tem- 
porary and local mistakes in legislation, the new theories 
of the biological economists will fall completely to the 
ground. 

Man's physical development, and the different races in their 
ascendancy and their decay, may be subject to the biological 
laws, but the economic condition of free nations depends on 
their knowledge of the economic laws and their ability to 
adapt themselves to them. Social progress, from the earliest 
beginnings up to the present day, can only by analogy be 
described as a series of evolutions. In reality, it is one 
slow movement towards individual liberty frequently inter- 
rupted by retrogression. At present we experience a period 
of retrogression, largely due to the fallacies of our New 
Economists. At present the economic systems of all civi- 
lised States are hybrid systems, being partly Collectivist, 
partly Individualist. The great question is whether a pre- 
vailing and increasing poverty is due to the Collectivist or 
to the Individualist features of the systems. The New 
Economists have rashly, and, as we shall show later, 



12 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

erroneously started from the supposition that poverty is 
due to the Individualist features. 

The blindness as to the real causes of poverty is simply 
amazing. The German and French writers especially per- 
sistently shut their eyes to the great artificial causes of 
poverty which are at work in their countries. Thus Count 
d'Haussonville has achieved a feat of intellectual blindness 
which it would be hard to supersede. With the view of 
treating of 'Misery, its Causes and its Remedies," he has 
written a bulky volume, containing a graphic account of 
increasing destitution in France, replete with statistics and 
exact information, throughout which he gropes for the real 
causes of this misery. But, incredible as it may seem, it 
never strikes him to refer once to the glaring mistakes of 
French legislators. Such potent and irresistible causes of 
general ruin as Protection, Sugar Bounties, Shipping 
Bounties, Octroi Duties, Monopolies, senseless foreign expe- 
ditions, a stupendous standing army, a constantly increased 
State indebtedness — these awful obstacles to prosperity have 
entirely escaped Count dTIaussonville's search-light. His 
conclusions are not that obstacles to prosperity should be 
removed, not that this diabolical mechanism for the crushing 
of the masses should be abolished, not that justice should be 
done to the struggling people, but that charity on the part 
of the rich towards the working-classes is the only possible 
remedy. 

It is astonishing that any man should consider it worth 
while to write a large volume on the Labour problem in 
order to recommend such a solution. We wonder whether 
Count d'Haussonville and our sentimental economists have 
ever pictured to themselves what a State would be like in 
which the great masses of the people are reduced to beggars, 
depending for all their comforts and happiness on the charity 



THE MODERN ECONOMIC IMBROGLIO 13 

of a minority of plutocrats. It may be that there is method in 
the Count's madness, and that he has written his book, not 
to solve, but to further confuse the Labour question to the 
disgrace of the Republic and to the advantage of the 
Monarchy. Whatever has been his motive, his work will 
remain as a monument of the singular blindness characteris- 
ing the school of so-called New Economists of our times. 

We have dealt somewhat extensively with the sentimental 
economists, because, while their opinions have been influenced 
by those unsuspected causes and unforeseen events, already 
alluded to, these opinions themselves have contributed 
towards bringing the Labour question to an acute stage. 

Among the unforeseen events which have done so much to 
falsify the sanguine predictions of Individualist Free Traders, 
the depression of trade plays an important part. But the 
depression was in itself the result of mistakes in Economy. 
The United States of America adopted, after the war, a 
fiscal system which was as bad for England as it was for the 
States. Even before this mistake, America had passed Acts 
bound to prevent the people from prospering to the extent 
of their immense resources. Their currency legislation, and 
the submission of their banking to State supervision, had 
laid the foundation of those social evils which had long been 
rife in the old countries. The Protective system told all the 
more in consequence. The example of America influenced a 
great many other States. With the exception of the United 
Kingdom and a few minor countries, the whole world became 
more Protectionist. As was intended, free-trading England 
suffered considerably, not so much from the high duties as 
from the diminished consuming-power of the Protectionist 
nations. The thus artificially increased poverty all the 
world over re- acted on Great Britain, and produced increased 
depression here, 



14 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

Considering that all such State interference with business, 
as the artificial raising of the selling-price of all foreign goods, 
must be classed under the heading of Collectivism, and could 
never be considered as Individualism, it is impossible to deny 
that one of the heaviest blows against the prosperity of the 
British working-classes sprang from Collectivism. 

The British nation has, in its immense colonies and 
dependencies, a vast reserve-store of latent wealth. But our 
self-governed Colonies, as well as our dependencies, had 
been subjected to a mass of Collectivist legislation whereby 
their development had, as we shall show later on, been arrested 
or retarded. The consequence of this is that our trade with 
our Colonies and dependencies became only a fraction of 
what it might be, if the Individualist principle— that is 
amplified Free Trade — had been adopted all round. We 
thus owe to the Collectivist principles that the vast resources 
of our Colonies and dependencies are not permitted to con- 
tribute their full quota to the prosperity of the British 
working-classes. 

Such was the position when the progress 'in leaps and 
bounds ' ceased. Our sentimental economists took no heed 
of the fact that the evils inflicted on our working- classes 
from abroad sprang from Collectivism, but calmly assumed 
that these gigantic anomalies were indispensable features in 
a world organised on Individualist principles. 

Nor did they take any heed of the Collectivist features 
which remained in our home organisation after the clearing 
away of useless legislation which took place during the 
Cobden era. While in reality the British nation had taken 
only a few hesitating steps towards the establishment of a 
free system, our sentimental economists took for granted 
that we had already reached that goal. What they called 
Free Trade was only partial free import. The slight curtail- 



THE MODERN ECONOMIC IMBROGLIO 15 

ment of Bank Monopoly, above referred to, only frag- 
mentarily removed the huge obstruction to fair wages which 
imperfect banking constitutes. It benefited financiers, 
share-brokers, speculators, bankers, chiefly; to a lesser 
extent merchants and the capitalist classes in general. But 
it did not remove, or even lessen, the terrible burden which 
the monopoly in the supply of credit and capital constitutes 
for the working classes. We devote a special part of this 
work to this important subject, and trust that when it 
becomes clear to what an extent our bank legislation pro- 
duces poverty, it will be recognised of what a flagrant over- 
sight those economists were guilty who took for granted 
that the economic system of our country was one of com- 
plete Individualism. 

The Bank Act was not the only piece of Collectivism 
inherited from the past overlooked by our economists. All 
the indirect taxation, especially such parts of it as have the 
double mission of collecting revenue and restricting the 
consumption of certain goods, partakes of a Collectivist 
nature. 

Though even a superficial observer ought to have under- 
stood that the stagnation in English business, with all its 
hardships for the working classes, was due to Collectivism 
in foreign countries, to Collectivism in our colonies and 
dependencies, and to Collectivism at home, a host of writers 
on economic and social subjects, and a very large portion of 
the Press, endorsed the mistake of the economists in taking 
for granted that the Individualist features of our system 
were to blame, and not the Collectivist features. This is 
all the more singular, as the few steps taken by Parliament 
towards a more rational Individualist system had promptly 
resulted in an unprecedented prosperity for British com- 
merce, and a rapid advance in wages. 



16 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

This mistake would probably not have been committed 
by so many sensible Englishmen had not a host of excep- 
tional circumstances paved the way for it. Besides the 
economic blunderings of foreign and colonial governments, 
there were other causes of depression in British commerce. 

Great motors of inflation had ceased to act. There was 
a considerable lull in the construction of railways all the 
world over, and the orders for English rails and railway 
materials had diminished. The change from wooden sailing 
ships to iron steamers, mostly built of English materials, 
was almost completed. From sheer want of credit, the 
wholesale borrowing of foreign States had almost ceased, and 
with it the torrent of British products which used to leave 
these shores in exact proportion to foreign loans placed in 
the London market. 

These and many other less palpable causes tended to 
produce a great change for the worse in British business. 
Where our economists are to blame is in the fact that they 
did not allow for these exceptional circumstances, but attri- 
buted the hardships of our working classes to too much 
individual liberty. 

A great deal of confusion was caused by the passing of 
the Factory Acts. The Bill was introduced at a time when 
the rising prosperity of the country was already fast remov- 
ing those evils which the Bill was intended to remedy. The 
splendid results which Free Trade and the abolition of 
hundreds of meddling Acts had produced were by the work- 
ing classes of the country erroneously attributed to the Factory 
Acts. A keen interest was taken by them in these Acts, while 
they knew but little of the economic virtues of Free Trade. 
They therefore attributed the effects of Free Trade to the 
Factory Acts — to this first step on the retrogressive course 
towards the old errors of the past paternal legislation. 



THE MODERN ECONOMIC IMBROGLIO 17 

So much prejudice and so many errors prevailed with 
regard to the Factory Acts that it behoves any writer on 
the subject to be rather explicit. When it is affirmed that 
factory legislation is a poverty-producing measure it must 
be understood that only such parts of the Factory Acts are 
referred to as constitute an infringement of the liberty 
of the working people. There was a time when, in virtue 
of special meddling legislation, mill-owners had a right to 
enslave children as apprentices, and even to adopt them, 
and thus acquire parental rights over them — all with the 
view to obtaining cheap child-labour. Such treatment of 
children, especially of orphans, is manifestly an infringe- 
ment of individual liberty, and could not' have occurred 
except through special legislation. It should also be borne 
in mind that such real or apparent usefulness as is now 
attributed to the Factory Acts springs entirely from the 
circumstances in the midst of which they are working. If 
by meddling legislation the State reduces the working- 
classes to poverty and desperation, it is no wonder if 
special Acts are required to protect children against their 
parents. When natural circumstances are permitted to 
prevail, when the demand for workers exceeds the supply, 
and wages consequently are normal, the Factory Acts will 
be rendered superfluous. In order to anticipate the possible 
impression that the object of this work is to abolish the 
Factory Acts, it may as well be stated at once that these 
Acts belong to that class of enactments which need no 
abolition, but should be rendered obsolete by a beneficial 
change in the circumstances that called them forth. 

It is, however, very seldom that one meets with any 
moderate views regarding the Factory Acts. From the 
time they were introduced up till now there has prevailed 
an almost universal fanatical faith in them. The few men 



18 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

who have understood their true nature and the retrogression 
they have heralded have been made martyrs. Thus the 
far-sighted patriotism and philanthropy of John Bright 
have, as far as they have been exercised in resisting the 
Factory Acts, been described as the selfish greed of the 
employer of labour aiming at the perpetual poverty of his 
workers. Under such circumstances it was not surprising 
that the passing of the Factory Acts and their apparent 
success should have been hailed by the masses as a proof 
positive of the fallacious nature of Individualist principles. 
It became safe for Lord Beaconsfield to sneer at the dry 
bones of Political Economy, and both politicians and jour- 
nalists were delighted to find that they could give unbridled 
licence to their sentimental proclivities without stumbling 
over the stubborn facts of Political Economy. John Bright^ 
prediction that the Factory Acts would prove the thin end 
of the wedge of retrogression has been completely con- 
firmed : for a torrent of State Socialistic legislation set in, 
which, despite the palpably bad results which it produces 
on trade and industry, is still at the flow. 

The Conservative party has always, since the abolition of 
the Corn Laws, had a grudge against Political Economy, 
and has never recognised its fundamental truth, namely, the 
solidarity of humanity. Many of its members have never 
understood that the institutions, liberties, and advantages 
which enlightened Conservatives most cherish have no chance 
of being defended except through arguments drawn from 
economic science. They, therefore, regarded with delight 
the loss of prestige of that science, and, forgetting the pit- 
falls they were digging for themselves, they were absorbed 
in the interesting operation of mining the ground under 
the feet of the Liberals by^ discrediting Individualism and 
liberty. 



THE MODERN ECONOMIC IMBROGLIO 19 

The Liberals, on the other hand, experienced an excus- 
able temptation to change their front, and to turn their 
backs upon those very Individualist principles, in the 
name of which they had won their power, and to embrace 
the principles of Collectivism. Their best chance of pro- 
moting their purposes was by extending the Franchise to 
the lower strata of society. Their object was to gain 
the suffrage of millions of voters who, though they had 
acclaimed the repeal of the Corn Laws, in order to obtain 
the big loaf instead of the small one, had no knowledge 
of the economic value of Individualism. It was found 
hardly practicable to rouse an enthusiasm round the plat- 
forms by scientific economic reasoning, especially by orators 
who had given the subject but scant attention. The 
English people experienced, with the rest of the nations, 
the tendency to apply the principle of Domestic Economy 
to the State, and to shun entirely the scientific aspect of the 
question. As invariably has been the case with nations 
whose destiny has passed into their own hands, the English 
people did not see their way to achieve their material 
happiness through liberty, but longed for new masters. 
The choice for them was not between liberty and thraldom, 
but between bad masters and good masters. History had 
taught them that despots, churches, aristocratic oligarchies, 
were bad masters, and the problem now was how to create 
a master who would not have the defects of the others. 

Actuated by influences from the Continent and America, 
and holding the view — so common among people who have 
little knowledge and no experience of the science of 
government — that the State represents all that is omniscient 
and omnipotent, the British masses developed the desire of 
making the State that benevolent master, without whom 
happiness to them seemed inconceivable. Once the ideal 



20 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

' Haroun Alraschid , of the Arabian Nights was re-evolved 
in the shape of the State, it seemed an easy matter to render 
everybody happy. Once the relation between the State and 
the individual reduced to the simple relation of the loving 
father to his children, the knotty problems of Economy and 
Sociology disappeared. The Protective spirit, to which 
already Henry Buckle correctly attributed the social and 
economic evils under which the nations of the Continent 
laboured, rapidly took possession of English minds. By 
appealing to this growing spirit of protection, to this decay 
of the love of liberty, the Liberals could sway public 
opinion in the country far more easily than by adhering to 
the old Individualist programme. 

At the same time it is only just to point out that 
very few of them realised the full extent of the evils and 
dangers they brought upon their country. Many of the 
old supporters of Cobden had accepted the Individualist 
principle in blind faith, and had never mastered the theories 
nor studied the practice which have demonstrated Indi- 
vidualism to be an indispensable condition of prosperity. 
A great number of the younger Liberals had not had the 
opportunity of comparing the state of the country under an 
anti-economic system with that of a comparatively free 
system, and naturally paid more attention to the senti- 
mental economists of their own day than to the staunch Indi- 
vidualists of the Cobden era. Even those Liberals of the 
old school, who were fully aware of the evil effects on trade, 
industry, and wages which State interference is bound to 
produce, were probably able to find some kind of excuses for 
not standing more loyally by Bright, Villiers, and Bradlaugh 
in their opposition to the retrogressive movement towards 
Socialism. 

But the greatest excuse of the Liberals was the feeble 



THE MODERN ECONOMIC IMBROGLIO 21 

resistance which the natural upholders of sound government 
offered to the rising tide of State Socialism : for it cannot 
be denied that — thanks to the incomplete manner in which 
the subject of division of labour under a free system had 
been grasped — the Collectivists seemed often to have the 
best of the discussions. 

As both the great parties had thus abandoned the guid- 
ance of scientific economy, and as almost all politicians 
proclaimed themselves more or less Socialists, the legislation 
of the country fell a prey to the popular fallacies of the 
day. 

Just as nothing succeeds like success, so nothing fails like 
failure. It has already been pointed out that the Liberals, 
while they were on the Individualist tack, had left untouched 
several most mischievous pieces of legislation ; and when 
these, together with the economic mistakes of our colonies 
and of foreign countries, had to a great extent conquered 
the natural tendencies towards progress and prosperity, the 
extra doses of State Socialism inflicted on the country told 
heavily. 

While profits dwindled, taxes rose. Vexatious inspec- 
tion, hampering prohibitions, and fussy regulations, weighed 
down British trade, British industry, and British shipping, 
and favoured foreign competitors enormously. The new 
paternal legislation involved sacrifices which, when there 
were no profits, fell on the wage-earning population. The 
reduced consuming power of the masses, consequent upon 
lower wages, intensified the competition among the pro- 
ducers, and thus further reduced both profits and wages. 

There were, moreover, indirect results of our legislative 
vagaries, as mischievous, perhaps, as the direct ones. Who 
can wonder that, when our leading politicians fully endorsed 
and acted upon the fallacious supposition, that Capital and 



22 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

Labour are naturally antagonistic, the working men of the 
country took the same view ? When persuaded that their 
employers were their enemies, they naturally organised 
Trades Unions on the pattern of a fighting machine. Instead 
of still further accumulating the huge capital, which the 
Trades Unions during the Individualist era had amassed, 
they wasted the resources of their societies, their own private 
savings, and not seldom the contents of their homes, in 
inflicting losses on their employers. Their theory was that, 
if they did not resist the reduction of wages, and if they did 
not compel by means of strikes a rise in wages, employers 
would take advantage of their peaceful attitude in order to 
reduce wages, or else keep them stationary. They did not 
know, and the agitators were not able to tell them, that 
no combination or action on the part of the employers can 
keep wages down when trade is progressing, and that no 
number of strikes, be they however gigantic, can raise wages 
when trade is on the decline. It is only now, after long and 
sad experience, that they begin to understand the true 
effects of strikes, namely, reduced consumption, less available 
capital, perpetual depression, permanently lower wages, and 
more unemployed. 

Let us hope that from this expensive lesson they will 
be enabled to perceive another not less indisputable truth, 
that uninterrupted work means increased capital, increased 
consuming power, increased demand for manufactured 
goods, increased demand for labourers, and higher wages. 
But, under the lash of the sophistries proclaimed by 
politicians and agitators, the workers did not understand 
that they might implicitly trust to the selfishness of the 
employer always inducing him to expand his business as 
much as possible, and consequently to secure as many 
workers as his business would require, and thereby keep- 



THE MODERN ECONOMIC IMBROGLIO 23 

ing wages at the highest possible point compatible with the 
permanence of his trade. 

The workers have introduced into their Trade Union 
politics the same mischievous tendencies of class animosity 
that Parliament has introduced into the politics of the 
country. By an endless series of strikes they did their 
best to kill the goose with the golden eggs. The injuries 
they inflicted on their employers were precisely of that 
kind which rebound upon themselves. They prevented 
them from buying their raw materials on a large scale, and 
consequently compelled them to a sacrifice in the purchase 
price. They prevented them from taking large and lasting 
orders. They made it impossible for them to reduce their 
profits, consequently, their selling price, as much as their 
foreign competitors. They interfered with the manage- 
ment of their works, and thus placed British industry at 
a disadvantage. They caused any amount of needless 
annoyance and worry, and thus drove the wealthiest and 
the best employers out of the market, thereby placing 
themselves at the mercy of ruthless sweaters both here and 
abroad. 

In this manner the direct and the indirect consequences 
of the return to old and exploded fallacies played havoc with 
British trade. As wages went down, as the number of the 
unemployed grew, the cry for more State interference was 
raised, and, like a drunkard whose craving for drink grows 
with every potation, the British nation is now thirsting for 
larger doses of the paternal legislation of which they are 
already the victims. 

The tactics of both the great political parties have thus 
brought the country, and with it the Empire, into a position 
of constantly-growing difficulties. The situation may be 
summed up as follows : The British Empire contains a popa- 



24 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

lation of about four hundred millions, who, with the excep- 
tion of a small minority, depend for their necessaries and 
their comforts on the general state of trade. The balance 
of power rests with the masses of these islands, who are more 
dependent on trade than any other sections of the citizens of 
the Empire. These wielders of the power have been talked 
into adopting a system of government which is undermining 
trade, and bound, sooner or later, to bring it to a stand- 
still. As this must result in misery and exasperation among 
the working-classes, it is inevitable that they should finally 
use their political power in order to appropriate such wealth 
as has already been accumulated — an operation that must 
involve the destruction of the Empire. 

The wealthy classes will be the first victims by a process 
of State confiscation of all their resources. When the con- 
fiscated capital has been exhausted the masses of the people 
will have to pass through one of these ordeals which usually 
mark the downfall of a great State. Our insular position 
renders a sudden catastrophe alarmingly possible. Year by 
year and month by month we are gliding on a slippery slope, 
which ends in a precipice. The process, of which the end 
can already be foreshadowed, is constantly operating with 
increasing energy. 

Onslaughts on capital are the sum total of the political 
programmes of both parties. Though, so far, capital has 
patiently submitted, and may yet to a certain extent 
patiently submit, to a system involving taxation, persecu- 
tion, heavy risks, and annihilation of revenue, it should 
be remembered that the capital of the nation does not 
belong to the government, but to private persons. These 
can, despite every law that may be enacted to the contrary, 
at a moment's notice, transfer all their working capital 
to other c^'intries. Under such circumstances it cannot 



THE MODERN ECONOMIC IMBROGLIO 25 

be expected that capital will remain in the country and sub- 
mit to a slow process of annihilation. When a certain degree 
of persecution has been reached, capital will spontaneously 
and simultaneously quit the country. The point at which 
this will take place will be marked by the breaking down of 
credit, and the breaking down of credit in a country like 
England must come about the instant that any doubt is 
raised regarding the safety of capital. 

The fear is that, with a constantly dwindling commerce 
and constantly growing demands from the destitute masses 
for more State charity, the government will finally have to 
increase taxation on capital up to confiscation point. The 
alarm which any such attempt, or rumour of attempt, must 
instantaneously produce, would cause the withdrawal of all 
balances in the banks. With an antiquated centralisation 
banking system such as ours, this would lead to the stoppage 
of all our banks. When in England the great system of 
clearing by credit and cheques breaks down there will be 
only a few millions of gold wherewith to meet thousands of 
millions of promises to pay. A general bank panic will 
therefore lead to a complete cessation of industry, and our 
great over-crowded industrial centres will be left without 
resources. Disorder and confusion will set in and fearfully 
aggravate the situation. The result will probably be that 
local governments, or either newly-formed emergency com- 
mittees, will have to lay hands on any stores of food 
wherever found. The inevitable consequence of such inse- 
curity of capital would be urgent telegrams to all foreign 
ports, ordering the retention of all cargoes of food intended 
for these islands. The stores of food being at any time 
extremely limited in Great Britain, such a self-inflicted 
universal blockade would produce an appalling famine in the 
country — and then a wolfish struggle for sheer existence 



26 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

involving all the horrors recorded of beleaguered cities and 
shipwrecked crews. 

The above sketched eventualities represent only one of 
the ways in which our political tactics are hurling the 
Empire to destruction. With the political, social, and 
financial situation strained to the highest point — increasing 
depression, growing class hatred, the power thrust upon a 
desperate proletariat, capital alarmed, credit and banking 
at the mercy of any strong British or foreign syndicate — 
a catastrophe may be brought about by many an unforeseen 
event. A serious riot, a general labour strike, an unsuccess- 
ful war, a lost sea battle, the failure of a group of banks, 
and many similar mishaps, may prove the detonator of 
the terrible mine. One thing seems certain. As far as we 
can ascertain from history, if we persevere in the lately 
adopted system of affording State charity to the bulk of the 
inhabitants of the State at the expense of the State, we 
shall have entered upon the beginning of the end. 

Though one meets seldom with the full expression of such 
fears as these, there is in this country a very large number 
of thinking people fully conscious of the danger to which our 
Collectivist policy exposes us. Some of those who take a 
correct view of the situation deem it hopeless, and, believing 
that they have no power to arrest the course of events, 
subside into a state of cynicism and pessimism. Others 
soothe their conscience by the resolve to swim with the 
current only to a certain point — where position, popularity, 
and income may be secured — and then to stand by the 
country and the Empire. Others, again, look upon the 
situation as another stage of development in the human 
race, and believe that the sooner the present system, 
which they choose to call the Individualist system, breaks 
down and a Collectivist system a la Bellamy is established 



THE MODERN ECONOMIC IMBROGLIO 27 

the better for our nation and our race. These are the 
convinced Socialists. In a special chapter of this work we 
deal with their extraordinary delusions, and do so in the 
hope of reducing the number of fanatics who are ready 
to sacrifice our country and our Empire for a dream not 
only impossible of realisation, but illogical and contradic- 
tory in conception. 

But, besides the pessimists, the corrupt partisans, and the 
Socialists, there are vast numbers of people in this country 
who place the highest possible value upon our free institu- 
tions, our British culture, our commercial supremacy, and 
our political power. With these people our escape from the 
present menacing situation rests. Only through their firm 
and resolute action can our country be piloted through the 
surf and the shoals ahead and again be launched on the road 
of progress and rational development. The character of our 
nation, the immense resources of our territories, warrant a 
future for our hardy race — a grand future, greater and more 
enchanting than any records from the past or any Utopias 
conjured up by the imagination. But present difficulties 
can be overcome, and a future rational development can be 
attained to, only by bringing our laws and institutions into 
complete harmony with the laws of nature and economy. 
The haphazard legislation, according to prevailing preju- 
dices, false sentiment, party exigencies, and popular fallacies, 
must cease. 

Some time ago it would have been impossible to unite in 
common action all such Britishers as would unhesitatingly 
place the weal of the nation before party interests, private 
aims, and particular fads. The maintenance of the two 
great parties was then a sine qua non for political progress. 
The Conservatives and the Liberals in Parliament were the 
delegates of two great national camps, and such reforms 



28 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

as any section of the people desired to accomplish had to 
be passed by the party to which that section belonged. But 
of late the cohesive force of the great parties has weakened 
enormously. That which mainly served to keep them 
together has disappeared. The long struggle for power 
between the masses and the classes is at an end. It has been 
decided in favour of the masses. There is at present no 
unity of purpose. All the measures now on both the pro- 
grammes, though party measures of abstract politics of 
little or no interest for the people, fail to secure the 
unanimous adherence of the members of each party. The 
Welsh and the Scotch Church questions, the Old Age Pen- 
sions, the Eight Hours' Day, and many other questions have 
opponents and supporters in both parties. Both parties 
consist partly of Socialists, partly of Individualists. The 
Liberal programme is for the most part constructed on the 
log-rolling principle, and the party is divided into more 
or less fanatical groups of extremists ready to quarrel 
among themselves. The Conservative party have for their 
programme a few Liberal measures in a moderate form 
heartily detested by the majority of its members, and is 
held together by a negative policy. 

This tendency of new party groupings constitutes Eng- 
land's chance to escape from serious complications. The 
men on whom the country can count in its present dilemma 
are now scattered in the various camps, and, the looser the 
old party ties become, the easier will it be for them to join 
hands in rescuing the country and the Empire from the now 
impending danger. What the country needs is a party free 
from the pledges, the traditions, prejudices and class-interests 
of the old parties, and so soon as a nucleus of such a party 
is formed, the best elements of the nation, and especially of 
the working classes, will rally round the standard of the new 



THE MODERN ECONOMIC IMBROGLIO 29 

movement. Be the leaders either plucked from among the 
present political coryphees, or be they new men, matters 
little : for there is every sign that henceforth the motto of 
the nation will be 4 Measures, not men."* Such a party could 
only come into existence by renouncing for ever the old 
weather-cock methods, and by adhering to sound, scientific 
principles of government. 

It is only justice to a large number of our politicians 
to emphasise the fact that their chief reason for adhering 
to miserable programmes is the want of knowledge among 
the people of what a sound patriotic programme should be. 
Not only in Great Britain, but all the world over, the 
politicians, wedded to absurd economic notions, are faced 
with a mass of problems for the solution of which the masses 
clamour. But, holding their power in virtue of a popular 
vote, they are compelled to humour the masses, and are 
debarred from adopting any Individualist Programme until 
an Individualist Party exists. 

The first condition, therefore, for the existence of a new 
popular party must be a clear and comprehensive pro- 
gramme, accompanied by completely convincing proofs of 
the possibility of carrying all its main points in a manner 
that will fulfil the best aspirations of the nation, tend to 
the happiness of not merely the greatest number, but of 
all capable of enjoyment, consolidate the Empire, and main- 
tain the British race in the foremost rank of progressing 
nations. 

If such a programme has not so far been held possible, it 
is because the nature of human progress has been incom- 
pletely understood. 

The essence of civilisation is division of labour. Com- 
pulsory labour was the starting-point of civilisation, and 
the slow progress that humanity has achieved during 



30 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

thousands of years is one continuous, though zig-zag, 
development towards individual freedom. Political reformers 
and framers of programmes have not understood that any- 
further progress must be in the same direction. They have, 
yielding to all sorts of temptations, constantly fallen back 
on retrogressive compulsory methods, by way of expediency 
in order to achieve their immediate objects. A programme 
such as is suggested above cannot be conceived or carried 
unless it is in complete harmony with the great universal 
progress towards individual liberty, which, as far as can 
be known by mortals, is the first and immediate object of 
the scheme of humanity. 



II 

ESSENCE OF EXACT POLITICAL ECONOMY 

The term Political Economy has, from lack of a clear 
definition, often led to misunderstandings. In the books of 
some writers it means considerably more than in those of 
others. There has never existed, unfortunately, any general 
agreement as to where Political Economy ceases and where 
other branches of knowledge begin. During the last twenty 
years the modern British economists have enormously added 
to the confusion of opinions as to the real meaning of the 
term Political Economy. Instead of lifting their subject 
out of the entanglements with other sciences into which 
previous writers had plunged it, they have mixed up their 
Political Economy with Domestic Economy, Sociology, 
Ethics, Philosophy, Politics, and Religion. Some of our 
modern economists have found that the term Political 
Economy incompletely describes the works they have pro- 
duced, and have discarded it for the more comprehensive, 
but more vague, term c Economics.' 

It is only fair to mention the reasons or the inducements 
for the modern complications of a comparatively simple sub- 
ject. They will be found in the natural desire of the Uni- 
versity economists to render their books more popular and 
to bring them into harmony with the prevalent political 
opinion and popular views of the time. The conclusions which 
necessarily followed from the true but incomplete reasoning 
of writers like Mill and Herbert Spencer, to say nothing 



32 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

about Malthus, had naturally appalled the masses. It was 
to millions a command to abandon hope — a command which 
rendered the world shockingly like Dante's ' Inferno." 

But the masses were not willing to abandon hope. It is 
easy for the well-to-do professor, who makes money and fame 
by writing pessimistic books, to be a pessimist, but poor 
and struggling people cannot afford to dispense with hope. 
Political Economy became thus the bugbear of politicians, 
agitators, clergymen, philanthropists, and many other good 
people, and was dubbed the Dismal Science. The working 
classes, though they could not disprove the dogmas of the 
dismal economist, rejected them with scorn, not on logical 
grounds, but in obedience to those strong convictions, often 
entirely correct, which arise from faith and instinct. Poli- 
tical Economy having thus become intensely unpopular, 
our contemporary economists set about to transform their 
science in order to suit popular taste. In this, however, 
they have not succeeded. Their ' Economics ' are more 
hopeful than the dismal Political Economy, but, alas, so 
vague, so intricate, so confused, so illogical, and so politi- 
cally biassed, as to inspire no confidence whatever. They 
have only succeeded in discrediting the science they hoped 
to render popular. The result is that Parliament legislates, 
politicians speak, and the more impetuous portion of the 
press writes, as if the laws of Nature and the laws of arith- 
metic had entirely broken down in all their relations to 
economic matters. 

In this chapter the term ' Economics ' will not be used. 
The term ' Political Economy ' will be maintained, but in 
order to arrive at a yet clearer distinction and to avoid 
confusion with what the older economists called Political 
Economy, the word ' Exact ' has been added to the term 
which designates the subject of this chapter. 



ESSENCE OF EXACT POLITICAL ECONOMY 33 

Political Economy being a comparatively new branch of 
knowledge, the nature of which does not allow the adoption 
of a new nomenclature, has been endowed with a mass of 
words which were previously used in connection with other 
subjects. A great many of these terms have a different 
meaning in Political Economy from their older significations. 
This has caused much confusion, especially as definitions have 
not always been the strong point of our economists. Even 
the simple word ' economy ' has been allowed to retain but a 
hazy meaning. 

Before Adam Smith there was no mistaking the word 
Economy in England. But since he laid the foundation of 
the art of enriching nations there are at least two mean- 
ings attached to this term, namely the old meaning, which 
now for clearness'' sake should be ' Domestic ' or else ' Patri- 
archal ' Economy, and the new meaning, c Political Economy/ 
Endless confusion has been caused by writers who, instead 
of distinguishing carefully between the two significations, 
have hopelessly entangled the one into the other. The two 
subjects which the two terms denote stand in no direct rela- 
tion to each other — at least in no other relation than, for 
example, art, intelligence, carpentry, might stand to Poli- 
tical Economy. 

As we here treat of Political Economy exclusively, there 
would have been no necessity to refer any further to 
Domestic Economy, had not the principles of Domestic 
Economy been frequently applied to States, and were there 
not all over the civilised world a marked tendency to govern 
and legislate for nations on such principles. As it is, we 
must necessarily establish a clear distinction not only be- 
tween the two terms but also between the two principles and 
the two systems they denote. 

Domestic Economy presupposes absence of individual 



34 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

freedom. It involves a division of labour established 
authoritatively, controlled by one central authority in 
possession of all the capital and with power to compel 
work and distribute products. 

Thus a farm, a factory, a workhouse, a plantation worked 
with slaves, a country governed with unrestricted despotism, 
would be so many illustrations of applied Domestic Eco- 
nomy. Though methods and means of coercion might 
differ considerably, these concerns are, however, all worked 
on the same economic principle — the principle of Domestic 
Economy. 

Political Economy, on the other hand, presupposes indi- 
vidual liberty, private ownership of property, a division of 
labour by free contract, and rewards regulated by the laws 
of supply and demand. 

In order to save words, the two systems are sometimes 
called the compulsory system and the free system. 

The ancient Empires had all their division of labour 
based mainly on the principle of Domestic Economy. 
Feudalism was a transition from the compulsory system to 
the free. In our times all civilised nations are supposed to 
have their division of labour organised on the principle of 
Political Economy or the free system, though in reality the 
principles of Domestic Economy have been largely resorted 
to everywhere. To guard against vagueness, it may be useful 
to reply to a question which here might be asked : Does a 
man who in England works in a factory for wages live 
under a system of Political Economy or of Domestic 
Economy ? The answer obviously is : He lives under a 
system of Political Economy, and, being a free agent, he 
has by free contract submitted to a system of Domestic 
Economy during certain hours, and on certain conditions 
determined by demand and supply. 



ESSENCE OF EXACT POLITICAL ECONOMY 35 

I* In spite of the Socialistic tendencies of our times, it is not 
likely that any civilised country will return to the com- 
pulsory system of division of labour. The masses would not 
submit to it. Profit on production is already extremely 
small as it is, and under the expensive management by 
bureaucrats, uncontrolled by any free press and authorised 
to exercise unremitting army discipline in every detail 
throughout each individual's life, production would yield 
profit only on condition that the keep of the masses were 
reduced to the smallest possible cost. But even if all 
civilised countries were governed on the principle of 
Domestic Economy, there would be no occasion to say 
much about it in a treatise on Political Economy, as under 
universal Socialism that branch of knowledge would be as 
superfluous as the science of navigation would be if all 
shipping were abolished and replaced by a submarine 
railway traffic. The government of socialistic States would 
have to adhere to the system and methods of Domestic 
Economy : that is, they would have to sweat their people 
as much as possible in order to raise the means for adminis- 
tration and defence, to say nothing of the police force and 
other means of coercion which would have to be organised 
on a colossal scale in order to keep the people under con- 
stant discipline. 

It is, therefore, entirely outside the domain of Political 
Economy to treat of legislation or methods adopted or 
intended to be adopted in a socialistic State. Even the 
pros and cons of isolated socialistic features in a free 
country cannot properly be examined from a politico- 
economic point of view, as they necessarily come under 
the heading of Domestic Economy. A nation should first 
decide to adopt or submit to one of the two systems, the 
free or the compulsory one, and then look round for the 



36 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

best method of carrying out the chosen system. If the com- 
pulsory system has been selected, the principles of Domestic 
Economy should be studied ; and if the free system has been 
adopted, the laws of Political Economy should be mastered 
and allowed free play. It will, therefore, be clear that we 
have nothing to do with Domestic Economy in this chapter, 
and we shall refer to it only when necessary or useful for 
the sake of illustration, comparison, or in reference to 
actualities. 

Though we are supposed to live under a free system, our 
legislation has from olden times been permeated by acts of 
compulsion, defensible only on the ground of Domestic 
Economy ; and during the last decades a host of such acts 
have been added to our statutes. We live consequently 
under a hybrid system, which, however, in spite of old 
socialistic laws retained and new ones added, is still pre- 
dominantly free. Under such circumstances it is natural 
that writers on Political Economy should be asked which is 
best for the nation — the compulsory system or the free, or, 
in other words, a Collectivist or an Individualist system of 
division of labour. To such a question economists do not 
reply in their capacity of economists, but as philosophers or 
sociologists, because the question is entirely outside Political 
Economy. Our reply to such a question would be that the 
compulsory system is the best for a nation too savage, too 
corrupt, and too ignorant to use their individual liberty for 
their own advantage. To such a nation the evils of coercion 
may be less than the evils flowing from misused liberty, but 
only on condition that the coercing power is naturally, or 
has an interest in being, benevolent, and that it emanates 
from people superior to the coerced nation. To a people 
including a majority of individuals enlightened enough to 
understand what is advantageous and what is hurtful to 



ESSENCE OF EXACT POLITICAL ECONOMY 37 

them, we consider the free system incomparably better than 
the coercive system ; and this not only because it is the 
only system compatible with material happiness and the 
smallest amount of suffering, but because individual freedom 
is the indispensable condition for intellectual, aesthetics!, 
and moral progress. 

As to the relative productiveness of the two systems, the 
free and the compulsory, that of the free system is incom- 
parably larger. In the ancient Empires, under the com- 
pulsory system of division of labour, works and buildings 
were accomplished, the ruins of which amaze us to-day. 
But these wonders were achieved slowly, and while such 
work was in progress the general production for the well- 
being of the people was for the most part at a stand- 
still. Thanks to the free system of division of labour, 
which we at least partially enjoy now, production is mar- 
vellously prompt and effective. Not only large buildings, 
but railways, tunnels, telegraph lines, steamers, machines, 
etc., are constructed quickly and easily, while an enormous 
mass of highly finished and attractive goods are turned out 
for the daily consumption and use of the masses. Science and 
invention have, of course, enormously assisted modern pro- 
duction, but it is no exaggeration to say that science and 
invention are to a large extent the outcome of free division 
of labour, and that they could not very well find their pre- 
sent wide application without it. Besides, in the com- 
pulsory systems of the past the object was one which did 
not allow the workers to be considered. If the production 
of wealth for the people themselves be the object, the free 
system of division of labour is therefore infinitely preferable 
to the compulsory. 

In their eagerness to discredit the dismal Political 
Economy, some of the sentimental economists of our dav 



38 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

are apt to deny the fundamental postulates of Adam 
Smith's school. The desire of human beings to obtain each 
for himself as much wealth as possible with the smallest 
amount of exertion ; to buy in the cheapest market and 
sell in the dearest ; to secure advantages and avoid losses — 
in fact, the existence of that universal selfishness which the 
old Political Economists seem to assume, is declared to be a 
fallacious supposition. We are told that all men are not 
selfish ; that many buy deliberately in the dearest markets 
on charitable or patriotic grounds ; that many spend their 
lives in securing advantages to others by sacrificing their 
own, etc. In reply to such assertions we might assert that 
the desire to profit might not be selfishness, but love of 
others — wives, children, friends, etc. ; that bad bargains 
struck on charitable or patriotic grounds are so few com- 
pared with the universal commercial and financial operations 
of the world as to lose all significance ; that actions and 
even lives of self-sacrifice have never exercised any per- 
ceptible influence on trade statistics, prices, supply and 
demand of coin or goods, etc. But such rejoinders would 
be entirely superfluous and out of place, as we need only 
point out that Political Economy has only to do with the 
'business'' of the world — with production, distribution, 
consumption, etc., and that Political Economy has no more 
to do with all these innumerable doings of humanity 
prompted by sentiment, duty, folly, and passion, than has 
the colour of the paper on which a geometrical figure is 
drawn to do with geometry. It is as much out of the 
question to look for the effects of the laws of Political 
Economy outside free business relations as to apply the 
rules of spelling to a painting. 

Consequently no logical mind will dispute the chief postu- 
late of all rational economists, namely, that human beings, 



ESSENCE OF EXACT POLITICAL ECONOMY 39 

as individuals and as States, will in all their business trans- 
actions and all matters of economy aim at securing the 
greatest possible amount of wealth for the smallest possible 
expenditure of work, and in all bargains as many advan- 
tages as possible with as few disadvantages as possible. 

To ignore or to dispute this postulate is all the more 
futile, and the sentimentality which induces such reasoning 
is all the more mischievous, as in virtue of the irrefutable 
economic law (which may also be described as a sociological 
law, nay, even as an ethical and religious truth) — the soli- 
darity of humanity — no man can benefit himself except by 
benefiting all men, and that no man can injure others with- 
out injuring himself. 

This economic law, the true basis of all correct economic 
reasoning, will be explained further on, after the economic 
significance of certain leading features in our civilisation 
has been shown in its true light. 

Experience early taught men that by combining their 
work they could achieve far more than by working single- 
handed. They found that by co-operating they could 
accomplish things entirely impossible for an isolated indi- 
vidual to achieve, that they could work with more ease, 
with less danger, on a larger scale, more systematically and 
more continuously. The advantages of co-operation were 
especially striking in the tempered zones, and the countries 
subject to rigorous climates, where the comforts of life were 
almost entirely dependent on personal exertion, forethought, 
and stored resources. To this fact may partly be attributed 
the stupendous development which division of labour has 
attained in Europe. It is natural that the people living in 
tropical countries, able to satisfy all their wants by simply 
plucking the fruits from the trees, or catching the fish in the 
sea or the rivers, should pay but little attention to the best 



40 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

methods of rendering work easy, and consequently that they 
should not improve their system of division of labour. 

The first attempts at dividing labour were no doubt made 
within the family circles, such work being allotted to each 
member as suited best his or her age and abilities. The 
obvious advantages of leaving each man to do such work as 
he could best execute, and of allowing him to work without 
interruption, led to the development of special trades. Thus 
the men who made and supplied the others with weapons 
and hunting implements were in return supplied with game 
by the hunters, and so on. 

Division of labour was further extended when co-operation 
was established between different communities. The dif- 
ferent localities, the varying resources, and the diversities in 
tastes and abilities, caused each tribe and each neighbour- 
hood to devote themselves to specialities, obtaining such 
products as they did not produce themselves from other 
communities. 

The division of labour within each household, and some- 
times within each tribe, was of a domestic* or patriarchal 
nature — that is to say, it was compulsory. The head of the 
household or the tribe, or in some cases the elders of the tribe, 
supplied the raw materials, allotted to each member his 
task, and awarded to each an appropriate recompense for his 
work. But when two independent families, or other groups 
of people, or two strangers, wished to utilise each other's 
products, their co-operation could not take place on the 
principles of patriarchal division of labour, or Domestic 
Economy. There were in such cases either two arbitrators 
with opposing sympathies and both interested, or else 
there were none. Co-operation, therefore, between inde- 
pendent communities, or strangers, operated in the form of 
exchanges. 



ESSENCE OF EXACT POLITICAL ECONOMY 41 

The inhabitants of districts in which fish was an easy pro- 
duct exchanged such with the inhabitants of other districts 
where other products than fish were more easily obtainable. 
Sometimes fixed periods and convenient places were ap- 
pointed for such interchanges of products. These gather- 
ings were called fairs, and while remnants of them still 
linger in our country, they flourish with but little change 
in the East. Thus the famous fair of Nijni Novgorod still 
remains as an illustration of one of the earliest evolutions of 
division of labour. 

As division of labour extended, and as many com- 
munities began to co-operate through exchanges, the primi- 
tive system of direct barter became onerous. By the term 
barter we here understand the direct exchange of one article 
against another without an intervening medium of exchange, 
the value of each article being expressed in quantities of the 
other. It is evident that when one individual wished to 
exchange, say, ten articles against ten others, not only the 
bargaining, but the measuring and weighing, became a very 
complicated and tedious affair. The use of a value-measurer 
was, therefore, early resorted to. If the accepted value- 
measurer were, for example, fox-skins of average size, the 
exchanges became much easier when the value of each of the 
goods to be exchanged was determined in fox-skins. It was, 
of course, soon found that the actual presence of the fox- 
skins was not necessary to the transactions. If, after a 
certain quantity of goods worth so many fox-skins had been 
exchanged for another quantity of goods worth a less 
number of fox-skins, there remained a balance of fox-skins, 
this might easily be settled by an additional quantity of 
goods valued in the same manner. Thus primitive man 
knew by experience what our currency theorists and bi- 
metallists fail to grasp, namely, that such goods, or such 



42 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

metals, as have been accepted as value-measurers, need not 
be bodily present in order to complete bargains. 

As exchanges brought people of many different districts 
into communication, it became necessary that a useful value- 
measurer should consist of goods sought for by all the 
communities participating in the exchanges. If, for instance, 
a coast tribe adopted fish-hooks as a value- measurer, the 
exchanges between themselves might thereby be facilitated, 
but when their exchanges extended to tribes that had no 
use for fish-hooks, such a value-measurer would simply 
complicate and confuse the bargains. But if, on the other 
hand, they adopted, as a value-measurer, some ornamental 
shell, desired by all the tribes in the country, as many 
African tribes had done, their valuations and their bargains 
would be greatly facilitated. It was, therefore, natural that 
only such goods as were in general demand were adopted as 
value-measurers. 

The resorting to value-measurers greatly extended division 
of labour by means of exchanges. Small bargains were 
thereby specially facilitated. By keeping a small stock of 
the value-measurer desired by all, goods could be readily 
obtained, even in small quantities, by exchanging a small 
quantity of the value-measurer against a corresponding 
quantity of the desired goods. These indirect exchanges 
— exchanges by means of a certain quantity of the value- 
measurer — were called buying and selling, as distinct from 
bartering. In order to be ever ready for such indirect 
exchanges — or to buy — it was necessary, and extremely 
useful, for every man to keep a certain quantity of the 
value-measurer. In this manner the value-measurer itself 
became the first medium of exchange. 

Many kinds of goods have been used as value-measurers at 
various times, and in various countries. Some have been 



ESSENCE OF EXACT POLITICAL ECONOMY 43 

extremely awkward, such as heads of cattle, reindeer, etc., 
because they could not be divided, or cowries, the value of 
which is diminished by their superabundance where they are 
gathered, or pieces of cloth which vary in quality, or skins 
which vary in size. The metals presented advantages which 
rendered them specially suitable as value-measurers. Every 
country and every tribe required them, they were not easily 
destroyed, they could be readily re-manufactured, and, above 
all, they could be divided into small parts without losing 
their value. It was consequently by a process of the selec- 
tion of the fittest that the metals came to be the value- 
measurers, and the ideal media of exchange of every nation 
entering upon the road of civilisation. 

In order to save words, a certain weight of metal was 
given a short name, and the quantity of metal thus desig- 
nated did service more especially as the value-measurer. 
Thus 57 lbs. of silver was by the Greeks called a talent, and 
when they said their property was worth one thousand 
talents, it meant that its value corresponded with that of 
one thousand times 57 lbs. of silver. 

Some of the metals, such as lead, iron, and copper, being 
found in large quantities, and varying frequently in value 
according to demand and supply, they were found unsatis- 
factory value-measurers in large transactions. Their weight 
and bulk rendered them extremely inconvenient as media of 
exchange in bargains of any importance. By another evolu- 
tion, in obedience to the law of the survival of the fittest, 
the precious metals became the value-measurers of nations 
wealthy enough to possess any quantity of them. In order 
to facilitate the handling of them, and to avoid the trouble 
of weighing and testing, the precious metals were sub- 
divided into small equal parts, and each part was stamped 
with signs or inscriptions, which indicated that they con- 



44 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

tained a certain amount of metal of a certain alloy. In this 
manner coins were introduced. Subsequently laws were 
promulgated, which stipulated that such words, under which 
the coins were known, such as pound, mark, livre, thaler, etc., 
should signify so much metal, of such alloy. 

The stamp on the coin, the name under which the coin 
was known, the recognition by the law of such a name — all 
this gradually caused the coin to be regarded as something 
apart from the metal of which it was made. Its two separate 
functions, that of value-measurer, and that of medium of 
exchange, gradually failed to be distinguished the one from 
the other, and as almost everything came to be valued in 
coin, the fact that coin was simply a certain quantity of a 
commodity slipped from the people's minds, and coin wrongly 
came to be looked upon as a kind of mechanism, by means 
of which all buying and selling was carried out. 

When the masses became used to the coin, when they 
accepted it without testing or weighing, taking it on trust 
simply on the strength of the stamp it bore, this stamp 
became the chief consideration. All the more so, as princes 
and governments invariably arrogated to themselves the exclu- 
sive right of stamping coin, or, as they call it, of minting. 
The assumption of this prerogative was generally approved 
of by the people, who believed that in this manner uniformity 
and protection against fraud would be secured. But when 
the princes and governments found that the people attached 
more importance to the stamp than to the intrinsic value, 
they soon hit upon the device of issuing coins under the old 
names and the old stamps, but made of less or worse metal. 
So long as this fraud was kept within reasonable limits, it 
caused hardly any inconvenience, and even when it was 
carried to so large an extent as to depreciate the coin of 
the country, the people were bamboozled by the govern- 



ESSENCE OF EXACT POLITICAL ECONOMY 45 

ment receiving the debased coin in taxes without deductions 
for the lowered value. A man who had to pay ten livres 
in taxes would receive from his debtors ten livres in debased 
coin, which might be worth only eight livres in the old 
unadulterated coin, but did not protest because he knew 
that the government would receive these ten livres in taxes 
without deducting for the debased value. That the govern- 
ment afterwards raised the taxes, making the tax-payers pay 
twelve livres, instead of ten, was looked upon as an incident 
entirely disconnected with the debasing of the coin, and 
emanating from the financial stress of the government. 

Such operations on the part of the governments greatly 
furthered the public misconception, which attached more 
importance to the stamp than to the intrinsic value of the 
coin. This misconception has also been encouraged by the 
use of tokens in which the stamp is everything, and the 
intrinsic value of an entirely secondary consideration. The 
confusion became worse confounded when governments and 
banks, finding that tokens circulated as easily as full- weighted 
coins, began to circulate their stamps alone, in the shape of 
bank-notes. 

The full process of development of modern media of 
exchange, from the unstamped lump of copper up to the 
English country banker's note of to-day, has been given here, 
so that it may be clear that, though forms, habits, customs, 
and views have changed, no actual change has taken place 
in the real nature and the economic significance of the value- 
measurer. We call a £5 note five pounds, and we can use 
it as if it were five golden sovereigns, but we only need to 
read the text of the note to find that it is simply a promise 
to pay five pounds. The note simply circulates on the 
strength of the great probability that it will be redeemed 
with five golden sovereigns. The five golden sovereigns, on 



46 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

the other hand, are by Act of Parliament bound to contain 
a fixed quantity of gold of a certain alloy, and any sovereign 
containing less may be repudiated. Consequently, the value- 
measurer is now, as it was far back in antiquity, a certain 
quantity of metal. 

The introduction of coin, and its representatives, has 
enormously facilitated the extension of the division of 
labour. To say that buying and selling have become easy 
is to say that universal co-operation is easy. If primitive 
man found great benefit from division of labour, we in our 
turn might fairly say that it is capable of apparent miracles. 
Whether we contemplate its functions within a modern 
factory, or in international commerce, we must marvel at 
the effects it produces. In a factory established for the 
manufacture of one of those thousands of objects of com- 
fort and utility, which have become almost second nature to 
modern civilised man, the large and rapid production, the 
low cost, the wonderful accuracy, the exact uniformity, 
the perfect finish — all this is the result of division of 
labour. 

To each worker is allotted the task to submit only one 
piece of a perhaps complicated instrument to one single pro- 
cess. As soon as the piece has gone through the process, it 
is passed on to another worker who brings it one stage nearer 
completion. The same system is continued until the article 
is properly packed, and ready to leave the works. The gain 
of such a system of division of labour consists not only in 
the time saved by each individual worker keeping the same 
tools, standing in the same place, and maintaining the same 
attitude, but also in the extraordinary skill each worker 
acquires in his speciality. But, perhaps, the greatest advan- 
tage is the application of special tools and machinery to 
every special process, which is only possible and practicable 



ESSENCE OF EXACT POLITICAL ECONOMY 47 

in connection with a large production carried on through 
minutely sub-divided labour. 

The economic results of this modern method of produc- 
tion are very considerable. It would not be difficult to 
make out a list of articles, the cost of production of each of 
which has, through modern division of labour, been reduced 
to one-thousandth part of what it would have cost if pro- 
duced by one man alone. 

Great as the importance of division of labour practised 
in the workshop is, it pales before that of the universal 
system of division of labour, which is at the same time the 
essence, the motive, and the very life of modern civilisation 
— the system by which one man works for millions and 
millions work for one man. Thanks to this system, one 
individual can, by fulfilling a simple easy duty to the rest of 
humanity, perhaps in turning a handle, watching a machine, 
keeping a book, or superintending a staff of men, help to 
produce comforts, luxuries, and pleasures, towards which 
hundreds of generations of now dead, and millions of living 
people, have contributed their work. For there is no limit, 
either chronologically or geographically, to this uninter- 
rupted, ever-working system. Every modern product is the 
last link in an unbroken chain of productions, taking its 
origin in the action of some primeval man shaping a piece 
of flint into a tool. The flint axe broke the ore from the 
rock, and cut the timber for the furnace, and the first iron 
tools were produced. The iron tools were handed down, 
and produced better ones, until the steel tools took up 
the work, and produced machinery. Machinery produced 
machinery, until enormous pieces of metal and huge 
masses of matter were capable of being handled with less 
exertion than that with which the first flint axe was 
produced. 



48 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

At this moment people in every clime are working to 
produce goods, each of which will be spread over the globe. 
The Indian worker in the tea or indigo plantation labours 
for all those who will drink the tea or wear the clothes 
dyed by the indigo. The number of people all over the 
world who will be finally benefited by the British coal-miner 
is practically infinite, because his produced capital will 
spread in the form of new productions from district to dis- 
trict, and from country to country, and will be continuously 
handed down, minutely sub-divided from generation to 
generation. 

The mission of division of labour is to make humanity 
wealthier, that is to say, to facilitate work, so that neces- 
saries, comforts, and luxuries may be obtained at the 
smallest possible expenditure of work, and thus leave human 
beings more time for physical and mental development, for 
art, science, and enjoyment. There can be no doubt about 
the power of division of labour to accomplish this. It has 
always been hinted that man's productive power has, in 
many cases, multiplied a thousand-fold, and with the rate at 
which the inexhaustible powers of nature are being enslaved 
by invention and discovery for the profit of man, work will 
go on acquiring a constantly -growing potency. Nature 
supplies practically inexhaustible stores of raw materials for 
wealth, and by means of constantly improved division of 
labour, the process of transmuting these raw materials into 
enjoyable wealth is becoming easier. The result of extending 
division of labour should, therefore, be less labour and more 
wealth for every human being. If, so far, the extended 
division of labour in the world has not produced such 
results for a great majority of the people, it is not the fault 
of that Power which has evolved the scheme of humanity, 
but of legislators who have interposed artificial obstacles to 



ESSENCE OF EXACT POLITICAL ECONOMY 49 

the natural development of universal co-operation, as we 
shall demonstrate in the following chapters. 

The present generation continues the work of preceding 
ones by utilising such stores, instruments, tools, and 
machinery as have been produced by their labour. In other 
words, the products of one generation form the capital of 
another. 

The term capital belongs to those terms which have been 
appropriated by Political Economy from other branches of 
knowledge, but which, when so appropriated, assume a new 
meaning. The word capital has been borrowed from the 
terminology of commerce and finance where it signifies the 
total of the possessions of an individual or a firm. The 
economic term capital means those material results of 
previous labour which are consumed in or intended to be 
consumed in production. 

All who wish to study Political Economy should carefully 
avoid confusing the economic term capital with the com- 
mercial term capital. Such confusion has unfortunately 
been common with many writers on Political Economy, and 
they have therefore involved themselves and their readers in 
many entanglements and difficulties. It should specially be 
borne in mind that any intellectual or moral results of the 
exertions of previous generations which man inherits cannot 
be considered capital in the economic sense of the word, 
whatever they may be in any other sense. Exact Political 
Economy deals only with material wealth, and the methods 
by which it is produced and distributed. Capital (the word 
will henceforth be used only in its economic sense, except 
when otherwise indicated) is often confused with the word 
wealth. Wealth is such material things as are desired by 
human beings, and therefore exchangeable. Consequently a 
great many things are both wealth and capital. Thus, for 

D 



50 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

instance, a silver statue is wealth, so long as it is kept for 
ornamental purposes, but if it be melted and manufactured 
into forks and spoons it would form part of the capital in 
that production. From the definition given above of the 
term capital it will be clear that there can be no capital 
unless there be production, just as there can be no weft or 
warp if there be no web. Consequently when wealth is 
consumed in a production it becomes capital without ceasing 
to be wealth, just as the yarn becomes weft or warp when 
woven into a web without ceasing to be yarn. 

From the above definition of capital it also results that 
coin as such is not capital. It is imperative to bear this fact 
in mind, as the value of capital is nearly always expressed in 
coin. The most deplorable mistakes have been committed 
in all civilised countries by confusing such terms as wealth, 
capital, and coin. Thus, for example, a colony, or a quasi- 
virgin country, abounds in wealth of all kinds. The ques- 
tion is, how to utilise it ? The exploiteurs find that they 
are short of capital, though in possession of an immense 
amount of natural wealth. Confusing the terms, capital 
and coin, it seems natural to them to borrow coin in order 
to obtain capital, and by this process they not only fail to 
obtain the required coin, but they lose capital, and plunge 
the country into all the economic and financial miseries 
which our Colonies and other new countries have so largely 
experienced. How this comes about will be further ex- 
plained in the chapter dealing with Labour and Capital. 

In order to get out of the difficulties which result from 
confusing the two meanings of the word capital, some 
economists endeavour to make a distinction between fixed 
capital and fioating capital. Their idea is that such things 
as are often sold and bought and easily movable should be 
classed under the heading of movable capital, while such 



ESSENCE OF EXACT POLITICAL ECONOMY 51 

things as are difficult of realisation, or remain attached to 
the ground, should be termed fixed capital. If we try to 
apply these theories their futility becomes evident. Accord- 
ing to them, a steam-engine on wheels in possession of a farmer 
is floating capital, but if the farmer takes the wheels off and 
places the engine on a brick foundation it becomes fixed 
capital. Anybody can imagine to what confusion such 
theories must lead. In Exact Political Economy no such 
distinction is required, and could serve no purpose. 

Our Colonies and other countries, when they wish to raise 
a large loan, often state their case as follows : — We have 
any quantity of fixed capital in our natural resources, but we 
are short of floating capital wherewith to develop them, and 
we wish to raise the required floating capital by means of a 
loan. But they would come nearer to the truth were they 
to state their case thus : — We have immense natural wealth, 
and require a clearing system by which we can co-operate in 
transmuting these resources into wealth, but, not knowing 
the right way of financing production, we must have resort 
to the clumsiest way on record, namely, by borrowing gold 
from other countries to the full extent of our operations, 
and thereby destroying our prosperity for many years to 
come. 

The mistaken legislation, of which we treat in subsequent 
chapters of this work, has produced a state of things 
throughout the civilised world which has given rise to very 
serious misconceptions regarding the relations between 
capital and labour. Though such legislation is almost 
equally detrimental to the capitalist and to the labourer, the 
latter may be considered its chief victim. A heavy loss to 
the capitalist may mean only a reduction in his wealth and 
his income, while the loss of thirty shillings per week to a 
labourer may mean the loss of his total income and absolute 



m THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

starvation. The anomalies which have arisen from mistaken 
legislation may afford opportunities to the capitalist to 
recoup himself by speculation, by cornering, by sweating, 
and by usury, while it affords no such opportunities to the 
labourer. Hence an antagonism between capital and 
labour, which often breaks out in bloodless war, fought at 
enormous sacrifice on the part of the workers. 

This antagonism between capital and labour has been, 
by many economists and writers on social topics, considered 
as a natural one. Some of the pessimistic school look upon 
it as an inevitable condition, and the natural operation of 
the law of the survival of the fittest. Others base on this 
supposed antagonism whole systems of reasoning intended to 
demonstrate that rationalism — the development which is 
presided over by the human reason — necessarily involves the 
assertion of self at the cost of others, that the interest of the 
individual is diametrically opposed to that of society at 
large, and that individual actions, dictated by reason, would 
gradually destroy and degrade the human race, if there were 
not altruistic checks, such as the religious influences, com- 
bating selfishness in virtue of the law of social evolution. 

Those who have built elaborate systems and ingenious 
theories on the natural antagonism between capital and 
labour have built on a fallacy. Not only is there no natural 
animosity between capital and labour, but there is, on the 
contrary, between them a natural solidarity. Whatever is 
harmful to labour is harmful to capital, and whatever is bene- 
ficial to capital is beneficial to labour. It is true that 
thousands of years of experiences, as well as present-day 
actualities all the world over, appear to disavow this truth. 
But the solidarity of capital and labour, as well as the 
solidarity of the whole of humanity, is an economic fact 
which may easily be obscured, or an economic law the opera- 



ESSENCE OF EXACT POLITICAL ECONOMY 53 

tion of which may easily be suspended by artificial means. 
But this does not prevent it from remaining a truth all the 
same. 

To say that capital and labour are antagonistic, because 
bad laws induce them to war against each other, would 
be as absurd as to deny the law of gravitation because 
a balloon ascends into the air. The natural force which 
attracts bodies to the earth can be so utilised as to suspend 
bodies in the air, as in the case of the balloon. In the same 
way the economic forces can be so employed as to produce 
apparently opposite results to those they would produce 
when not misdirected. For thousands of years the relations 
between capital and labour have been vitiated by wrong- 
headed legislation and institutions, and to-day every civi- 
lised country has, in ignorance of the laws of Political 
Economy, heaped up a mass of legislation powerfully tending 
towards the destruction of the natural solidarity between 
capital and labour. 

Capital and labour are indispensable to each other. 
Labour without capital in a modern society is almost 
inconceivable, while on the other hand, capital begins to 
perish the moment it ceases to be employed by labour. A 
mill that does not work, a ship that does not sail, farm 
implements that are not used, stores that are not employed, 
consumed, or reproduced — all these would perish rapidly if 
labour were not employed to keep them in good condition. 
The capital they represent would be utterly lost by the 
influence of time if it were not employed in the production 
of new forms of capital. From this it follows that, as avail- 
able capital in the world grows, so must the demand for 
and the pay of labour grow. On the other hand, destruc- 
tion of capital must tend to reduce the demand for labour 
and lower wages. 



V 



54 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

This undeniable truth is not impeached by the apparent 
displacement of labour by machinery, as many would have 
it. Every machine which produces new capital with less 
destruction of already existing capital (provisions, worker's 
clothing, housing, etc.) than was the case with hand-labour, 
tends to increase the capital and therefore the wages of the 
workers. 

The apparent contradiction of the fact, which we know 
by experience, that machinery largely applied in a country 
tends to raise wages on the one hand, and the popular 
belief that machines take away the work from the people on 
the other, can be easily explained. When a new machine is 
introduced, doing the work of twenty men, and nineteen 
are dismissed, these blame the machine for their enforced 
idleness. But when, thanks to the machine, trade improves, 
capital grows, and commerce expands, and the nineteen men in 
consequence find new employment easier and more lucrative 
than the old ones, they are apt to attribute this to any 
other cause than the machine. 

The many anomalies which are so abundantly produced 
under our present vitiated system, such as low wages and 
sweating, appear to the superficial observer as convincing 
proofs that what is the employer's advantage is the worker's 
disadvantage. But when we inquire minutely into the 
matter we find that under conditions established by legisla- 
tion the workers have to choose between either no wages at 
all or the wages of the sweater. The sweater himself, having 
to compete with others, and the consuming power of the 
world being small, capital scarce, and poverty prevalent, 
can only create a business and keep it going by excessively low 
cost of production. It is better for society that work should 
be done under these unfavourable conditions than that it 
should not be done at all ; for it is with nations as with 



ESSENCE OF EXACT POLITICAL ECONOMY 55 

individuals — when they have been ruined by their own 
folly or by misfortune, the best remedy is to work hard and 
to consume little. If special legislation did not prevent a 
natural development, each sweater's den would prove a 
source of prosperity. It would only be a question of time 
when the demand for workers would exceed the supply, and 
consequently induce the thrifty employer to shower benefits 
on the workers as energetically as he had been sweating them 
before. 

It may be objected here that, once arrived at the stage 
when capital has accumulated sufficiently to require a larger 
number of workers than would be available, the solidarity 
between capital and labour would cease, because labour 
would be in a position to exact an ever larger portion of the 
profit of production at the expense of capital. The reply to 
this is that, as capital ceases to grow, wages cease to grow, 
and any demand on the part of the workers that would tend 
to diminish capital would diminish wages. Besides, it should 
be remembered that through the increased prosperity and the 
high wages, which the harmonious co-operation between 
capital and labour would bring about, the consuming power 
of the masses would be increased to such an extent as to 
raise prices of goods in general, and considerably ease the 
competition between manufacturers. 

The same kind of solidarity that exists naturally between 
capital and labour, employers and employed, landlords and 
tenants (on which we shall dwell in the chapter on 'Free 
Trade in Land ') exists between all human beings who are not 
by circumstances excluded from the universal co-operation. 

Though, as has already been stated, potent artificial 
causes have been created, tending to produce a very different 
state of things, we can everywhere find confirmation of the 
reality of universal solidarity. The shop-keeper who serves 



56 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

his customer best, obtains the largest trade ; the manufac- 
turer who turns out the best goods, makes a fortune by his 
trade-mark. Such exceptions as may be quoted are often 
in reality confirmations. The usurer, who appears to enrich 
himself at the expense of his clients, in reality kills the 
geese with the golden eggs. Besides, his occupation is one 
which has become necessary or even possible through bad 
legislation. If the law did not forbid him, he would prob- 
ably become a note-issuing banker, or a shareholder in a 
bank, and would make more money for himself by helping 
others to make money than he now gains by usury. The 
grasping, selfish man, who aims only at the accumulation of 
wealth, as long as he does the best he can for this object, 
does not harm, but serves his fellow-beings. The wealth he 
acquires he re-invests, and every penny which is added to 
the working capital of the nation is a benefit to every man 
in the country. If he were to hoard his gains by hiding 
them away, he would harm his fellow-beings, but only by 
harming himself. 

The law of solidarity holds good between nations, as well 
as between individuals. All that is spoken and written 
about one country gaining by the losses of another country 
is the result of confused reasoning. We are often told that 
German industry is developing at the expense of English. 
As far as this is intended to mean that English workers 
become poorer because German workers become more pros- 
perous, it is not only untrue, but cannot possibly be true. 
Under natural circumstances, even the smallest increase in 
the prosperity of the Germans would cause an increased con- 
sumption of English goods, raise their price, and increase 
the profits of English manufacturers and English workers. 
The Germans would consume more of their own goods, and 
have less to send abroad to compete with English goods all 



ESSENCE OF EXACT POLITICAL ECONOMY 57 

over the world. It is not German prosperity that damages 
England. It is that German poverty, which is the result of 
Protective Duties, Bank Monopoly, enormous taxation, and 
other economic mistakes, that compels the Germans to work 
cheaply. For this artificially-produced poverty not only 
lessens the consuming power of the German people, but also, 
to some extent, the consuming power of all the nations that 
trade with Germany. The idea that any nation could 
become prosperous by first providing for their own consump- 
tion and then exporting large quantities of manufactured 
goods in order to compete with other nations, is so absurd 
as to hardly require refutation. It suffices to point out that 
no country can export more than it imports, a fact which is 
proved in the chapter on ' Imperial Free Trade."' 

Though Governments and Parliaments think otherwise, it 
is not possible to quote an instance of one country really 
benefiting by the misfortunes of another. Cases in history, 
such as the fight for the supremacy of the sea, for the pos- 
session of colonies, for commercial treaties, cannot be quoted 
in support of the opposite view. In all such cases we find 
that the Powers that have lost in such struggles, far from 
having done their best with the advantages they had lost, 
were actually using them in such a way as to damage them- 
selves. If, for example, two Powers existed of which the 
one, say Power A, managed its colonies on sound economic 
principles, and the other, Power B, introduced the Protective 
system, exclusive trading, monopolies, etc., into its colonies, 
it would be an advantage to the people of both the Powers 
if Power A wrung the colonies from Power B, and it would 
be a disadvantage to the people of both Powers if Power B 
wrung the colonies from Power A. 

If a nation possesses enough enlightenment and character 
to make a good use of liberty and the enormous economic 



58 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

advantages which personal liberty offers, its first care should 
be to have its laws and institutions based on the principles 
of Political Economy. It should reject such suggestions of 
State interference as ignorance and helplessness are ever 
ready to proffer in the vain hope of correcting supposed 
anomalies of a free system. A progressive nation should 
bear in mind that material happiness can best be achieved 
by widespread and intelligent co-operation, and that the 
indispensable condition for a perfect co-operative system is 
perfect personal liberty. Features of Domestic Economy 
inherited from dark ages, or re-introduced through a mis- 
apprehension of the laws of Political Economy, hinder 
nowadays in every civilised country the possibilities of free 
co-operation by exchanges. That the mania for counter- 
acting the unfortunate results of pernicious State violence 
by more State violence is responsible for by far the largest 
portion of the misery in the world, we hope to demonstrate in 
the succeeding chapters. The subject will not be exhausted, 
but the examples of misery-producing State interference 
dealt with will suffice to show what misfortunes and dangers 
legislators bring upon their nation when they legislate 
regardless of the truths of Political Economy. 



Ill 

THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 

The general feature of political development during this 
century in both the hemispheres may be correctly described 
as a constant ascendancy of the democracy. The word 
democracy must be here taken in its modern sense, that is, 
as standing for the non-aristocratic classes, including the 
lowest strata of society. 

Of purely democratic States there have been and are few 
examples. Though the United States have never passed 
through the ordeal of being governed by despots and oligar- 
chies from their very birth, their liberation from British rule 
and their consequent development as a Republic may fairly 
be looked upon as a democratic development. In Europe 
there are only two States which may be said to have remained 
unaffected by the universal ascendancy of democracy — Russia 
and Turkey. There is only one State which from its birth 
has been organised on a democratic basis — Switzerland. In 
all other European States the democracy has gained power, 
while previously ruling dynasties and oligarchies have been 
either completely superseded or compelled to submit to 
constitutions. 

It is now just about a century since the great democratic 
upheaval took place in France, from which political reformers 
of the other continental States took their cue. Despite the 
fact that in Great Britain the middle-class, since the time 



60 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

of Cromwell, have had a share in the government of their 
country, it is well-known history that the French Revolu- 
tion reacted strongly on the progress of democracy in Great 
Britain. Hardly was the peace with France concluded 
when the Reform Bill agitation began, though the first 
reform itself did not take place till 1832. 

On the Continent the Napoleonic wars for a time quashed 
all ideas of political reform, but scarcely had the Con- 
gress of Vienna dispersed than the continental demo- 
cracies showed signs of life. It was not, however, until 
1848, when a fresh Revolution in France had roused the 
discontented masses of the Continent, that practical steps 
were taken to democratise the European Governments. 
Though revolutionary attempts in several countries failed, 
and though the second Republic in France was soon 
smothered by Napoleon in., the influence of the democracy 
has since that period made itself more and more felt. 

To the careful student of modern history it will be evi- 
dent that the ascendancy of the democracy in Europe has 
been accelerated at least as much by the incapacity and 
corruption of the power-wielding dynasties and classes as by 
the ability and tactics of democratic leaders. Louis xvi., 
with his incapable ministers and corrupt surroundings, could 
not very well have done more than he did to bring about 
the first French Revolution. The dynasties, courts, and 
bureaucrats of other European States followed faithfully in 
the footsteps of their French prototypes, and, when the 
revolutionary wave of 1848 passed over Europe, some of 
them readily compromised with the democracy, while others 
by brutal repression secured a few years of respite. 

In the middle of the century the awakened democracy 
had not only the advantage of extremely weak opponents, 
but also that of an almost unanimous agreement in their 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 61 

ranks. The governing dynasties and classes had, through 
criminal carelessness and inborn incapacity, neglected to 
the utmost the interests of the respective peoples. Economic 
and fiscal enactments of the most foolish kind were enforced ; 
trade and industry were hampered in a hundred ways ; 
pragmatical armies of bureaucrats pestered everybody and 
disorganised everything ; taxes were ruthlessly exacted, 
unjustly distributed, and wastefully collected ; monopolies 
and sinecures were upheld ; individual freedom was harshly 
restricted ; the Press was held in bondage ; police espionage 
was largely practised; and the people generally regarded 
as a tax-producing mechanism. The opposition against 
such governments naturally bound men together both as to 
purpose and as to means. The accusations levelled against 
the authorities were that they had no desire to ameliorate 
the condition of the masses, that they deliberately kept the 
people Ipoor in order to facilitate their domination, that 
they suppressed freedom of speech and freedom of the Press 
in order to hide their own corruption, and that they with- 
held public control from the finances in order to spend as 
much as possible on themselves and their families. Though 
the economic systems which were generally adopted in the 
European States were wretched in the extreme, the demand 
of the democracy was, as a rule, not the repeal or the pro- 
mulgation of certain fiscal or economic enactments, but for 
a more democratic constitution. 

The cause of this was that the people had found it 
entirely hopeless to obtain any hearing from their govern- 
ments for any reform calculated to improve the condition of 
the masses. The influence of bureaucrats and monopolists 
among the classes, who always found some more or less 
plausible reason for believing that the gain of the people at 
large was their loss, was strong enough to smother at the 



62 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

birth any attempt to obtain reforms from government. 
The works of the economists had been studied, and, as their 
teachings had never been tested by experience, and always 
favoured greater liberty, they had been blindly accepted by 
the democratic leaders, and such economic reforms as the 
economists recommended were devoutly placed on the list, 
with a host of other more or less practical measures, and not 
a few Utopian dreams, to be carried as soon as the masses 
had secured the power. 

In this manner the unanimous, immediate object of all 
democrats was a democratic form of government : for, as 
matters stood, it was the indispensable condition for the 
fulfilment of all other aspirations. With that enthusiasm 
without which no man is a reformer, the democratic leaders 
took for granted that the measures they had on the demo- 
cratic programme would unfailingly accomplish the objects 
for which they had been framed. By no one was it sug- 
gested that the democracy could possibly, after having 
secured the power, put it to any other use than one bene- 
ficial to the masses. Though their ideals were hazy, and 
the means by which they hoped to realise them were untried 
and primitive, the democrats entertained no doubt of their 
ability to realise those objects by such means. 

Thus, the aim of all the democratic aspirations was 
originally a democratic form of government. As the move- 
ment spread, and as the younger generations took up the 
struggle, the one-sidedness of the aim was more and more 
insisted upon. The more the democratic principles took 
the shape of a life-philosophy, or a religion, the more was 
it forgotten that democratic institutions should not be the 
aim, but the means of obtaining real substantial advantages 
for the people. 

To mistake the means for the end seems to be a common 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 63 

frailty among nations. This is, perhaps, an inevitable 
result of the difference in the minds that conceive the ends 
to be attained, and of the minds that cany out the means. 
A far-seeing man indicates to a nation some great good to 
be fought for, and he and his surroundings spontaneously 
determine the means by which it shall be won. They 
generally do so without the aid of experience and without 
the assistance of science, and are therefore often utterly 
mistaken. The means they wish to employ being in them- 
selves difficult of attainment, the struggle is finally carried 
on exclusively for the conquest of those means, the final 
great goal receding gradually into the background. 

An illustration will make this clear. Christ preaches 
peace on earth and good-will among men. His followers, 
in order to spread his teaching, found a Church. In order 
to strengthen the Church, dogmas are promulgated. To 
glorify the dogmas, pilgrimages are ordained. To assure 
the continuance of pilgrimages, the holy places must be 
protected. To obtain possession of the holy places, the 
Crusades are instituted. Thus, those very places where 
peace and brotherhood were first preached, become the 
scenes of savage bloodshed and ruthless slaughter. In this 
way the successive substitutions of the means for the end 
often hurl a movement in the very opposite direction to 
that in which it was started. 

This is what happened to the democratic movement. The 
object was held up by philosophers, poets, and economists — 
it was that indispensable condition for human happiness, 
individual liberty. The profoundest psychological studies, 
the loftiest flights of the noblest sentiments, the most 
enchanting dreams of the imagination, the most ingenious 
researches into economic causes and effects, and the accumu- 
lated experience recorded by history — all converged in up- 



64 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

holding individual liberty as the noblest goal for human 
effort and the ideal state for human society. 

Individual liberty was, therefore, at the beginning of the 
democratic movement the great final aim. Its votaries at 
that time understood that, when firmly established all the 
world over, it would give the widest possible play to those 
noble instincts in every human heart which constitute the 
main-springs of all human progress. They knew that it 
would reduce the temptations to evil, develop self-reliance, 
quicken personal responsibility, sweep away a host of potent 
causes of poverty and misery, and gradually bring about the 
only genuine altruism, namely, free, spontaneous, and effec- 
tive brotherhood. They were fully convinced that such 
grasping selfishness, such fiendish competition, such mutual 
enslavement, as characterise our civilisation at the present 
moment, could only be maintained by the infringement of 
individual liberty, by artificial legislative checks on the 
operation of the natural laws which warrant the material 
happiness and moral elevation of humanity. 

The first step towards the conquest of that powerful talis- 
man, individual liberty, was to break down the authorities 
who withheld it. No other course seemed open, and therefore 
opposition to despots and ruling castes became the watch- 
word of all lovers of freedom. But as this opposition must 
needs use practical measures, and as it had to give form to 
such gradual measures as from time to time could be intro- 
duced, it was imperative to have another form of govern- 
ment evolved ready to take the place of the existing tyrants. 

The new governments were naturally required to possess 
those attributes which were conspicuously absent in the old 
ones. The chief of these attributes was the desire to benefit 
the masses. To make the governments elective and to 
subject them, to the greatest possible extent, to popular 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 65 

control, seemed the surest way of securing a benevolent 
government. 

Thus the aspirations towards individual liberty were 
gradually transformed into a demand for a democratic form 
of government. The intense enthusiasm for individual 
liberty was transmuted into one for democratic government. 
At first it was well understood that democratic government 
was a desideratum simply because it would lead to individual 
liberty. But this fact was soon forgotten, and democratic 
government itself became the final goal. 

When governments had been sufficiently democratised to 
work the popular will, it was entirely forgotten for what pur- 
pose the process of democratisation had been entered upon. 
The people's decision as to the best use to make of their 
acquired power was considerably biassed by the necessity of 
doing many things that could not be avoided. The first of 
these was to provide a defence against reaction — an obliga- 
tion that absorbed an enormous share of time and energy. 
A lengthy struggle for power caused the subjection of the 
reactionary element to be regarded as one of the chief ob- 
jects of democratic governments. This object seemed best 
realisable by framing special laws against the reactionary 
elements and by establishing special privileges for the poorer 
classes of society. That such a relapse into the old perni- 
cious system of class-legislation was an infringement of the 
principle of individual liberty, and consequently so many 
steps in a diametrically opposite direction to that leading to 
the original goal, was not heeded. Old means had become 
new goals. 

The idea that the mission of a democratic government was 
to legislate in favour of the masses in the same way as the old 
governments had legislated in favour of the classes was 
powerfully strengthened by what happened in Great Britain. 



66 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

Being a practical nation, and possessing such leaders as 
Cobden, Bright, and Villiers, the British people made a 
good use of the additional political power they had 
acquired through the Reform Bill of 1832. They entered 
upon a campaign against a mass of government-interfering 
acts, and wrested from the classes religious, social, and 
economic liberties of the most vital import. The new 
economic liberties produced the most striking effects. 
Besides the repeal of a host of more or less important but 
entirely useless and pernicious enactments, two great econo- 
mic reforms were accomplished which, though they constitute 
only faltering steps towards complete economic liberty, 
will be immemorial through the effects they produced. 
These reforms were a curtailment of one of the most per- 
nicious monopolies ever created — namely, the monopoly of 
the Bank of England, and the abolition of the Corn Laws. 
The curtailment of the Bank monopoly allowed the exist- 
ence of the many large private banks in London, without 
which the subsequent development of business would have 
been impossible. The partial Free Trade which was the 
outcome of the abolition of the Corn Laws gave an unpre- 
cedented impulse to British trade, which reacted powerfully 
on every country in the world. 

The sensible use which the British masses made of their 
political power produced an amount of prosperity which the 
democrats of the Continent attributed not so much to its 
real cause — the extension of economic liberty — as to the 
ability of the British democracy to legislate in its own 
favour. When, therefore, the Radical party in England, 
strongly encouraged by the Conservatives, began to lose 
sight of the great goal — complete individual liberty — and 
again fell back on State-meddling measures, which to the 
superficial mind appear favourable to the masses, the conti- 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 67 

nental democrats became convinced that they could enter 
upon the road of prosperity, as they supposed the English 
had done, by means of State-meddling legislation in favour 
of the masses. They saw in the British developments the 
confirmation of the theories of the French philosophers 
and all the socialistic writers who followed in their train. 
This volte-face in reasoning was eagerly endorsed by the 
masses, who, understanding nothing of Political Economy, 
could not conceive any progress save on the lines of Domestic 
Economy. They reasoned about the State in the same way 
as they reasoned about their homes, farms, and factories. 
The government was to be a kind master, presiding in 
fatherly love over the citizens, supplying each with suitable 
work, and dividing fairly, and when required, charitably, the 
products. Any enactment which tended towards such a state 
of things was hailed as so much progress. 

The drawbacks to such a system — the sacrifice of in- 
dividual liberty — were at first not considered, and were by 
the Socialist leaders deliberately kept in the background. 
When gradually it leaked out that a system of domestic 
or patriarchal economy demanded absolute power in the 
government, irresistible authority on the part of the 
officials, and an unremitting discipline and subjection on 
the part of the working-bees in the Socialistic hive, the 
alarm of the people — at any rate of the least intelligent ones 
— was allayed by the assurance of the Socialist leaders that 
there was nothing to fear from an omnipotent government 
and a commanding bureaucracy so long as that government 
and those bureaucrats were elected by the people themselves. 
The leaders took good care, however, not to tell the people 
how long a government, possessing infinitely greater power 
than any despot the world had hitherto seen, and a class of 
bureaucrats bound to maintain stricter discipline over every 



68 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

detail of each individuaFs life than was ever exercised by 
any military officer — how long such authorities would submit 
to the dictates of a host of people who would be living on 
doles from the government and working compulsorily without 
the right of possessing even a scrap of property, and having 
submitted to live in a state of abject slavery. 

One thing was evident even to the most sanguine Socialists: 
that if the Collectivist system were to realise anything like 
the hoped-for results, it was absolutely necessary that the 
government should possess unlimited powers. It was evident 
that no man, and no set of men, could undertake to provide 
for the feeding, clothing, housing, instructing, amusing, 
conveying, keeping in health, every individual in the country, 
without having unrestricted power over the working capacity 
of the nation. The supporters of the Collectivist aspira- 
tions had, therefore, not only to resign themselves to a 
complete renunciation of liberty, but to struggle for the 
establishment of a more despotic government than the 
world has ever experienced. 

As at present all those classes of the civilised world 
favour Collectivism who at the beginning of the democratic 
movement were ready to sacrifice everything, even life, to 
individual liberty, it will be evident that the democrats 
have, during half a century, described one of those huge 
circles which ever delayed the progress of humanity, and 
that they are now striving to establish a state of things 
representing the hyperbole of that state against which their 
whole movement was a protest. 

A glance at the leading States of the world will reveal 
to what an extent and in what manner the democracies of 
different nations have taken their part in the universal 
volte-face of democracy. 

Hardly had the French democracy in the first Revolution 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 69 

brought the aristocracy and the church down on their knees 
when class persecution a outrance began. In the name of 
liberty, the power of the government was constantly in- 
creased, and, as invariably has been, and ever must be, the 
clutching of the power by groups and by individuals became 
easier in exact proportion as the individual liberty of the 
citizen was reduced. The climax was soon reached in the 
tyrannical and blood-thirsty government of Robespierre. 
The egregious mistakes of the French democracy caused 
Napoleon to be applauded when he, at the head of his 
guards, nervous and shaking with fear, mustered courage to 
disperse an assembly which, detested by the nation, was 
tottering to its fall. From the defeat of Napoleon at 
Waterloo up to the present day, the democratic element 
of France has been preponderant, but during all the revolu- 
tions and constitutional changes which have resulted from 
the struggle between the different camps of the democrats 
and the forlorn hope of the old systems, the great object of 
the first Revolution — liberie, and its corollaries egalite and 
fraterniU — have been entirely lost sight of. Changes from 
Republic to Empire, from Empire to Kingdom, and back to 
Republic and Empire, and finally to Republic again, have 
left individual liberty exactly where it was. An endless 
series of constitutional changes and ministerial crises have 
not removed one scrap of that absurd economic or financial 
legislation which weighs down the working classes. Never 
was an epigram more justified than that attributed to 
Alphonse Karr, who is reputed to have said of the political 
changes of his country plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose. 
Of all the systems that France has tried, none has been 
fraught with such misery to the working class as that of the 
present Republic. It more than justifies all those virulent 
attacks hurled against it by the Socialist and Anarchist press of 



70 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

France, which to us Englishmen appear not only exaggerated 
but criminally vulgar and madly indecent. We sympathise 
with the attack, but not with the assailants, possibly because 
these seem incapable of justifying their onslaughts, and 
lash themselves into a fury, not because the French legis- 
lators subjugate individual liberty, but because they do not 
destroy it altogether. While the trade of the country is in 
a deplorable state and the working classes are gradually 
sinking into hopeless misery, the democratic authorities in 
France do not lift a finger to remove one single one of those 
potent causes of stagnation and bad trade which have been 
legally established by those democrats who preceded them. 
Instead of taking some steps towards the great goal of the 
first Revolution by abolishing such instruments of economic 
tyranny as Protection, Octrois, Sugar and Shipping Bounties, 
banking and other monopolies, they are making themselves 
ridiculous in the eyes of all future generations by intro- 
ducing what they call palliatives in the shape of more 
government interference and more compulsion. 

The French power-holding democrats, in order to prop up 
the dwindling trade of France, induce the French people to 
undertake military attacks upon weaker races in Africa and 
Asia, much to the disgust of all high-minded and justice- 
loving citizens in their country. They are apt to quote the 
example of England as an excuse for a colonial policy 
which should be abominated by every true democrat, but 
they forget that the object of England's colonial extension 
is Free Trade, and that state of prosperity in British 
dominions which alone can form the basis of a successful 
trade for all nations, while the object of the colonial policy 
of the French democracy is Custom Houses. They do not 
hesitate to destroy the liberty and prosperity of a weaker 
race in order to secure a market for French goods to the 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 71 

exclusion of the products of every other nation. Enormous 
sacrifices are made, torrents of blood are spilt in the hope of 
securing an increase of the French export trade by means 
completely inadequate, while the whole country for want of 
liberty is rendered incapable of taking advantage of even 
the most wealthy, the most fertile, and the best governed 
colonies. 

The French democracy has succeeded in reducing one of 
the richest countries in Europe, and one of the ablest and 
most ingenious, most generous, and thrifty nations of the 
world, to a state of chronic financial and economic trouble. 
If the condition of the working classes of France is anything 
like what both Royalist and Socialistic writers depict it to 
be, the French democrats have certainly proved themselves 
incapable of governing. They seem not only incompetent 
to bring about any progress, but even to form any rational 
idea of what progress really is. In justice to the French 
nation, let us, however, remember that the deplorable state 
into which democracy is plunging France is not due to any 
mental or moral shortcomings of the nation, but to their 
unfortunate bias in favour of Collectivism and to their pre- 
judice against individual liberty. 

That enchanting country, Italy, some thirty years ago led 
the world to hope that it was entering upon a new era. 
Roused to new national life by the unification for which 
Garibaldi's heroic deeds paved the way, the Italian nation 
seemed determined to persevere on the road of progress. 
Here, as in France, the democratic element predominated ; 
and here, as in France also, a complete confusion set in, both 
as to aims and means. The financial ruin of the country, of 
the communities, and of individuals, was compassed and 
accelerated by every economic and financial fallacy that 
could be rooted out from the limbo of past governments. 



72 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

To all the mistakes of France the Italian democrats added 
the curse of an excessive government paper currency and 
enormous foreign indebtedness. Up to this moment no 
statesman, no newspaper, no philosopher, no economist 
throughout Italy, seems aware of the fact that the great 
financial and economic troubles of the country have been 
brought about artificially by the errors of the democracy. 
The palliatives that have been applied to stave off the com- 
plete ruin of the country belong to the class of the old 
fallacies, and as there is no sign of the Italians discovering 
the huge leaks which threaten to sink the ship of State, the 
friends of Italy must fear the worst for that country. 

As the ascendancy of the democracy in many other 
European countries has been marked by the same errors, the 
corroboration of the above assertions as to several of them 
may be safely left to the reader. Special mention should, 
however, be made of one country, which may be designated 
as the most democratic State in Europe, namely, Norway. 
For centuries Norway has had no aristocracy. The bulk of 
the people has consisted of land-owning peasants, many of 
them proprietors of sufficient tracts of land to justify the 
appellation of peasant kings, which in olden times was 
occasionally applied to them. In the Congress of Vienna, 
Sweden gave up its provinces in the North of Germany, 
and received as compensation Norway, which Denmark 
was supposed to have forfeited. But the proud Nor- 
wegians flatly refused to ratify the decision of the Con- 
gress, and wished to remain independent. The result was 
a brief war between Norway and Sweden, in which the 
superior numbers and equipment of the Swedes, under so 
able a commander as Charles xiv., also famous as General 
Bernadotte under Napoleon, quickly told against the impro- 
vised forces of the Norwegians. When King Charles the xiv., 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 73 

after the defeat of the Norwegian army, entered Christiania, 
the Norwegians expected to be annexed to Sweden. But, 
to their great delight, this far-sighted man repeated 
the magnanimous policy of Quintus Flamininus towards 
Greece, and declared Norway free. From motives on which 
opinions are divided, he also conferred upon them a more 
democratic government than any nation of Europe enjoyed 
at the time. Norway, having never been entirely subju- 
gated by Denmark, and having enjoyed wide autonomy 
during its union with Sweden, may be, therefore, regarded 
as a thoroughly democratic State. 

And what is the result of democratic institutions in that 
country? A century ago Norway boasted of having no 
nobleman and no beggar. Its inhabitants led a rough and 
toilsome life, but such hardships as they had to suffer arose 
from bad communication, restricted shipping, primitive 
fishing methods, and defective farming. But they had 
plenty of food though it was coarse ; warm and picturesque, 
though rough, clothing ; good housing, and ample fuel. The 
opportunities of employment were simply unlimited, though 
the wages were low, being paid in kind. A man's work was 
always worth considerably more than his keep, and, under 
such circumstances, there was little or no occasion for 
begging. It was this total absence of a demoralised pro- 
letariat which rendered possible that lavish and royal 
hospitality to which English travellers of to-day who have 
visited the remote districts can testify. Proofs of the fact 
that the people enjoyed a considerable amount of prosperity 
will be found in the continuous purchase by foreign visitors 
of silver and gold ornaments which used to be worn by the 
people. As there were hardly any banks, the peasants, like 
the ryots of India, freely invested their surplus wealth in 
these ornaments, in silver vessels, and in silver coins. Stories 



74 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

are told of peasants who, on receiving visits from distin- 
guished guests, in default of a carpet and by way of orna- 
mentation, covered the floor of the guest's bedroom with 
silver Specie Dalers. 

In a country thus situated the rising democracy had cer- 
tainly a fair start. But what has it made of its oppor- 
tunities during the century ? The population has increased, 
despite an enormous emigration ; the fishing has developed 
largely, but chiefly for the benefit of the capitalists; the 
hardships of the men are as great as ever, and their 
remuneration, when the present high prices are taken into 
consideration, is hardly an improvement on the old one. 
The shipping has greatly developed, but now yields nothing 
like the profits it used to do. The crews have to sail the 
worst and leakiest tubs that ever ploughed the sea, invari- 
ably under-manned and encumbered with deck-cargo, for the 
scantiest pay. The woods of Norway have been ruthlessly 
cut down for the benefit of a few firms in the large shipping 
ports, but no compensating capital has been left behind with 
the owners of the soil. The young forests are now being 
ravaged for the production of pit-props for England at a 
price which barely pays for the cutting and carting. The 
farmers, who used to own their large farms with all that was 
on them, are now indebted to banks and money-lenders 
for amounts which often reach and exceed the price the 
farm would fetch if sold. Poverty, once unknown, has been 
fostered, abounds, and is on the increase. The cities and the 
communes are over-burdened by their poor-rates, and a 
proletariat has grown up in the towns. 

These results — unnatural to the country — have been arti- 
ficially produced by laws enacted by the modern democracy. 
High Protective duties, which were favoured by the people 
as a clever dodge to place all the taxation on the well-to-do 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 75 

people of the country, have in Norway produced the same 
dreadful results as everywhere else : high cost of living, low 
export price, low wages, scarcity of employment, indebted- 
ness, and an increasing proletariat. Bank monopoly is of 
course imposed on the people, and produces in Norway, as 
elsewhere, high cost of production, low price of sale, scarcity 
of capital, a chronic want of media of exchange, losses on 
prominent undertakings, commercial immorality and periodi- 
cal crises. 

The thoroughly vitiated economy of the country naturally 
produces great dissatisfaction. And what is the attitude of 
the extreme democrats with regard to the growing discon- 
tent? One would think that at last their eyes would be 
opened to the folly of the system they, in conjunction with 
other democracies, have adopted. But no ; they find no 
fault with the infringement of individual liberty in every 
direction, but endeavour to lay the blame on liberty. More 
coercion of capital, more power in the hands of the State 
over the individual, such are the remedies that the Norwegian 
democrats advocate. Complete socialistic slavery is the 
goal of the extreme democrats, and, as the union with 
Sweden to some extent stands in the way of a Socialist 
Republic, whatever that may mean, the slight ties which 
connect the two countries are being blamed for results of 
democratic folly. 

The United States, with their enormous expanse of fertile 
soil, vast forests, and immense mineral resources, and inhabited 
by a completely democratic nation, represent, perhaps, of all 
the countries in the world, the most frightful example of 
the mistakes committed by modern democracy. When the 
Americans started on their career as an independent nation 
they were imbued with a genuine love of individual liberty. 
Such sentimental worship of freedom as they had, in common 



76 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

with all the noblest races of the world, was backed by an 
intelligent appreciation of free institutions born of experi- 
ence. So long as they maintained a respect for individual 
liberty their country advanced at a rate which entirely 
eclipsed all other old or new countries or colonies. Had the 
democracy in the States adhered to its original principles, 
and not committed all the mistakes of European demo- 
cracies, they would have supplied humanity with an example 
of a rationally governed country. But there, as in other 
countries, the people had not reached that high intellectual 
development which seems indispensable before a nation dares 
to be free. Many unimportant enactments were inherited 
by the United States from British administration, and many 
others were early adopted by the different States. But the 
lurking desire for State tyranny and officialism blossomed 
forth only after the great Civil War. 

The immense debt and the inflated paper currency re- 
sulting from the war were made a pretext for gratifying 
the Protectionist proclivities harboured by the North. 
Patriotism and national pride demanded that the War 
Debts should be repaid as soon as possible ; but as patriotism 
could not be screwed up to cash-payment point, direct taxa- 
tion was out of the question. Any of the political parties 
who had imposed direct taxes to allow of the repayment of 
the War Debt in the same ratio as they were repaid by 
indirect taxes would have been ousted from power. 

The plan of raising the required money by import duties 
which had so often proved a strong temptation to democracies 
was particularly irresistible to the people of the United 
States. The same idea prevailed there as prevailed in Norway, 
that the taxing of foreign imports in a chiefly food-produc- 
ing country would throw the burden rather on the classes than 
on the masses, because the bulk of the imported goods were 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 77 

luxuries. The vanquished Southerners, whose interests were at 
a discount, had fought for Free Trade with England, and it 
seemed just retaliation that they should be forced to buy 
their manufactured goods from the Yankees at fancy prices 
and sell their own products, mostly raw materials, especially 
cotton, to the Northern manufacturers at the reduced price 
which Protection involves. Then there was a very large 
number of classes and trades which, reasoning in that super- 
ficial way that has been peculiar to democracies in general, 
fancied that Protective duties would largely benefit them. 
The trades which were destined to become the first victims of 
the new system — the farmers and the shipowners — were so 
confused by a mass of Protectionist sophistries as to offer no 
effective resistance to, and even to applaud, the new departure. 
All the well-known Protectionist fallacies were ostentatiously 
put forward : the money would remain in the country, the 
American resources would be utilised, the country would 
develop faster, the war expenses would fall chiefly on 
foreigners, important industries would be founded and 
fostered, American workers would be protected from com- 
petition with European pauper labour, and wages would 
rise. 

Such being the prevailing opinions, it was not surprising 
that the fallacious nature of the chief pretext for high im- 
port duties received so little attention. The duties were 
imposed to bring in money to the State, but hardly was the 
new system inaugurated than it became evident that the 
American manufacturers, who started works in every direc- 
tion, would spirit the bulk of the indirect taxes into their 
own pockets. They were naturally able to charge a price 
for their products equal to the European prices phis the 
heavy duties. To begin with, the protected manufacturers 
realised large profits, and the Protective interest, able to 



78 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

point with pride to the success of the new system, became 
paramount in the country. 

If we judge by appearance, the American nation as a whole 
took for granted that they had found the right way of organis- 
ing the economy of a great country. Few of them ever asked 
themselves the question, Who pays the damage ? Everybody's 
salaries and wages were raised, an immense debt was being 
paid off, and an enormous manufacturing activity was kept 
up, involving a heavy loss to the nation — all this meant an 
appalling alienation of American capital. Where did this 
capital come from ? It came from sources that were strictly 
limited, and the duration of the 'boom 1 might therefore 
have been calculated. The Americans simply drew heavy 
drafts on that huge stock of latent capital — in the shape of 
fertile soil — which Nature had deposited in their favoured 
country. 

The most accessible part of that latent capital, which, 
under a rational economic system, would have been trans- 
muted into a working capital large enough to make the 
Americans the capitalists of the world, was squandered and 
lost to America for ever. The process was as follows : 
During the Free Trade period the natural industries of the 
States worked at very large profits. Most important among 
these was farming. The American farmer possessed telling 
advantages over farmers in Europe. His land cost him little. 
He had no direct taxes to pay. The soil was fertile and 
yielded maximum crops with a minimum cultivation. The 
ground was flat and allowed expensive hand-labour to be 
largely superseded by machinery. But, besides his large 
profits as a specially favoured agriculturist, he enjoyed the 
benefit of the unearned increment in a far speedier ratio 
than the English landlords. As civilisation travelled west- 
ward in the States, the large tracts which American farmers 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 79 

had secured for next to nothing rose quickly in value. As 
the population thickened round him, the farmer obtained 
higher prices for his products, and when villages, communi- 
ties, and towns grew up upon his land, he obtained enormous 
prices for every yard of ground he sold. The American 
farming classes, therefore, were eminently prosperous, and, 
as they represented the bulk of the nation, the country was 
prosperous. 

It was the large profits of the American farming classes 
and American export industries which paid for the wrong- 
headed economy adopted by the American democracy after 
the war. The high duties which allowed the manufacturers 
to make rapid fortunes increased in the same proportion 
the cost of production of the farmers and of the export 
industries. They could not, in their turn, charge a corre- 
sponding high price for their products, because their selling 
price was regulated by the European markets. -But the 
high cost of production was not the only way in which the 
profits of the farmers were pilfered from them. 

As will be explained in other parts of this work, the 
export and import of a country are bound to balance. The 
curtailed imports to America necessarily curtailed the ex- 
ports, and, when the farmers kept increasing their produc- 
tion, they were obliged to accept such lower prices as would 
bring down the value of the huge export of America to a 
figure of that of the curtailed import. It seems that up to 
this day the American farmers have never realised how the 
Protective system is bound to lower the selling price of their 
products. 

If they did not believe in the abstract economic law, which 
renders export and import interdependent, it is surprising 
that they, as practical men, should not have noticed the way 
in which this law asserts itself. When America curtails its 



80 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

purchases of European goods to an abnormally small 
amount, the European manufacturers become slack. They 
have to curtail their production, and to dismiss many of 
their hands. Wages consequently go down, and the Euro- 
pean countries suffer from depression. The consuming 
power of Europe becomes reduced, and American products 
cannot be sold except at an extremely low price. The 
American natural trades, having thus to burn the candle at 
both ends — having their cost of production raised, and their 
price of sale lowered — find it extremely difficult to realise 
any profit at all. 

It stands to reason that, even during the flush times, 
the profits of the manufacturers were only a fraction 
of the losses imposed on the natural industries, and that, 
consequently, the American democracy had done well if 
they had pensioned off those capital- destroying manufac- 
turers to the fullest extent of their profits, and left the 
capital-producing natural industries free to flourish. In the 
chapter on 'Imperial Free Trade, 1 the full extent of the 
mischievous effects of Protection is explained, and a perusal 
of it will convince most readers how groundless are the 
claims put forward by Protectionists that a country will 
benefit, either directly or indirectly, from hampered import. 

It will, however, be useful here to consider the opinion of 
many Americans, that the large industrial establishments of 
the United States are the beneficial outcome of the Protec- 
tive system. Such an opinion contains two fallacies : the 
belief, in the first place, that such industries, as the bulk of 
those fostered by Protection, are a benefit to a country like 
the United States ; and, secondly, that such of their indus- 
tries as are of advantage to the country have been fostered 
by the Protective system. 

For our argument it is not necessary to fall back on the 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 81 

indisputable fact that an economic activity which consists 
in the destruction of a larger amount of capital in order to 
produce a smaller amount — as is the case generally with 
protected industries — is destructive to prosperity. Let us 
suppose, however, that the industries called forth by the Pro- 
tective system in America are actually self-supporting, and 
then see whether they involve any advantage to the country. 

The numerous and huge factories of England are pointed 
to as so many sources of wealth to the country. The British 
factory system, having developed simultaneously and in 
harmony with the extensive commerce and shipping of Great 
Britain, has generally been regarded as an indispensable 
factor in the development of the country. The success of the 
British factory industry thus came to be regarded by legis- 
lators in other countries as a pattern to be followed at any 
cost. They concluded that if they followed the example of 
a wealthy country they would render their own countries 
wealthy. 

But what did they do ? Instead of following the example 
of England, they simply aped it. In England such indus- 
tries had been developed as were most suitable to the cir- 
cumstances of the country, and the foreign countries, instead 
of developing industries suitable to their circumstances, 
ruined their natural trades in order to develop such indus- 
tries as were not suitable to them but suitable to England. 
The great democratic commonwealth of the United States 
was no exception. Like the other protected countries they 
aped England, and have reaped similar results. 

It is obvious that the capital, the hands, and the intelli- 
gence employed in protected industries cannot, at the same 
time, be employed in the natural industries. Any expan- 
sion, therefore, given to the factory industries of America 
must have been obtained at the expense of the natural 

F 



82 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

industries. Even if we omit the question of capital, and 
maintain the supposition that the protected industries yield 
an equal national profit to that of the natural indus- 
tries, the change from farming, and similar healthy and 
natural occupations, to the unhealthy work in the factories, 
is a terrible drawback to the population and a national 
calamity. The factory system brings in its train physical 
and social evils, which it ought to be the ambition of every 
legislator to avoid. Modern democracies have done every- 
thing to create them. 

What Protective duties in America are doing is to remove 
a considerable portion of the people from the fields, the 
forests, the gardens, and the ocean — from the sunlight, the 
healthy air, and contact with Nature — and to place them in 
stifling factories, overcrowded slums, where they breathe 
polluted air, waste their strength in unhealthy occupations, 
where they learn to live from hand to mouth, and where 
they are most exposed to demoralisation. The Protective 
system in America has, apart from the enormous loss of 
capital it inflicts on the nation as a whole, produced evil 
effects upon the population which will continue throughout 
generations, and perhaps for all time. 

The absence of Protective duties in the United States 
would in no wise have prevented, and in the long run not 
even delayed, the growth of a manufacturing industry. In 
order to determine whether the Protective system has helped 
to develop, or has hampered, American manufacturing indus- 
tries, we must not compare the present American industries 
with those that existed during the free period. But we 
should compare the present industry with that which would 
have existed had there been no Protective duties. 

Had the free system been continued, many hundred 
millions of capital would have been saved to the American 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 83 

nation, and would have largely increased its consuming power. 
The depression in farming and other industries would not 
have taken place, and the great majority of the nation would 
be buyers of manufactured goods to an incomparably larger 
extent than at present. The demand, therefore, for manu- 
factured goods, throughout the United States, would have 
been gigantic. 

The effect in Europe of such a demand for manufactured 
goods in America has never been taken into account by 
American advocates of Protection. Their idea is that Europe, 
and especially England, is capable of turning out unlimited 
quantities of manufactured goods at pauper-labour prices. 
Nothing can be more erroneous. While depression in the 
labour market may be produced by a small percentage of 
unemployed, it is the experience of all British manufacturers 
that even a slight improvement in trade soon absorbs available 
workers in every speciality. Should the improvement con- 
tinue, a rise in wages is bound to take place as soon as this 
absorption is completed. Continuous Free Trade in America 
would have produced an enormous demand for factory hands 
in Europe, especially in England. Wages would have risen 
to an unprecedented height. The price of manufactured 
goods would, therefore, have been very high in Europe, and 
there would have been every facility for the Americans to 
start manufactures of their own. Cheap raw materials, 
cheap provisions, cheap land, cheap power — all unaffected by 
the artificial rise now caused by Protection — would have con- 
stituted so many advantages to the American manufacturers. 
The prosperity which so huge an international trade would 
have produced would have kept freight and railway carriage 
at high levels, and would have constituted in themselves a 
protection for American manufactures, increasing in potency 
as the western part of the American continent developed* 



84 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

There can, therefore, be little doubt that under a Free 
Trade system, American industry would have attained a 
larger development than at present. There would, however, 
have been this difference, that such industry would have been 
a capital-producing industry instead of a capital-destroying 
industry. 1 The manufacturers 1 profits, instead of being a 
small percentage of the loss they inflict on the farmers, their 
own customers, would have progressed parallel with, and in 
consequence of, the farmers"' large profits. Instead of intro- 
ducing into America the present tyranny of capital, scarcity 
of employment, a growing Sweating system, and a host of 
those evils which the old corrupt governments of Europe 
have produced by faulty economic legislation, the American 
democracy might have enjoyed that excess of the demand for 
labour over the supply, which constitutes the only rational 
solution of the Labour problem, and the masses of America 
would have enjoyed that high degree of prosperity which is 
the only rational basis for prosperity among all the classes. 

Though the Protective system is the most obvious, and, 
to the untutored mind, the most easily understood economic 
mistake of the American democracy, it is by no means the 
only one. The currency legislation of the United States, 
the mischievous nature of which is so little understood by 
contemporary Americans, will form a subject of amazement 
for future students of history. The defenders of the present 
legislators of the great Republic will, of course, be able to 
quote many extenuating circumstances in their favour — such 
as Adam Smith's mistaken conception of the function of 
coin, the fallacious doctrines of all the currency theorists 
who have followed in his wake, the prevailing prejudices 
regarding coin, credit, and banking, etc. 2 — but no plea, 

1 For proofs, see chapter on Imperial Free Trade. 

3 See chapter on Free Competition in the Supply of Capital to Labour. 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 85 

perhaps, will go further to exonerate American statesmen 
than that involved in the circumstances under which the 
currency troubles began. 

Like the Protective system, they arose out of the war. 
Influenced by the fear, common to the leaders of all demo- 
cratic parties, of demanding cash sacrifices on the part of 
the tax-payers, Abraham Lincoln's government had recourse, 
among other expediencies, to the creation and inflation of a 
paper-currency. 

Though this financial method is considered objectionable 
by all orthodox financiers, and is always fraught with the 
risk of utter financial ruin to a' country, it presents facili- 
ties which must be extremely tempting to a hard-pressed 
government. The first issue of a paper-currency in a 
country, previously in possession of a metallic currency, 
puts the government in possession of funds — provided 
the matter is well managed by a government enjoying 
good credit — without causing any perceptible evil economic 
consequences. The first temporary effect, indeed, would be 
an inflation of business which would be welcome to all. The 
new paper issue simply expels the gold from the country, 
and it is only when the gold has left and the new paper- 
currency begins to exceed the amount of metallic coin which 
it has replaced, that the economic effect becomes visible : a 
continually expanded paper- currency necessarily becomes 
unredeemable, and falls in value in exact proportion to the 
degree in which it exceeds the expelled coin. The country 
thus nominally has more currency than before, but repre- 
senting the exact value of the expelled metallic currency. 
The economic effect is that people who have claims on others 
lose, and those who have debts gain — a levelling process sure 
to be popular with the mass of the population. 

The dangerous allurements of the system lie in the fact that 



86 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

each successive issue produces less economic disturbance than 
the previous issue. Suppose, for example, the country has 
a metallic currency of one hundred million dollars and the 
government gradually issues unredeemable paper dollars to 
the amount of one hundred and ten millions. The fall in 
the paper dollar — provided the credit of the government 
remains good — will be about 9 °/ . If after the effect of the 
first over-issue has been spent, another ten millions of incon- 
vertible paper dollars are issued, the effect is less, because 
the circulating mass of the currency is so much larger than 
before. The paper dollar would then only lose about 8 °/ o9 
instead of 9 °/ j an d would be worth a little more than 83 
cents. The next issue of ten millions would thus cause the 
paper dollar to lose only about 6^$ °/ , leaving the paper 
dollar at 76 T V cents in gold. Thus each issue of ten millions 
would produce a less marked disturbance, as the percentage 
of each such addition would be smaller when calculated on 
the already circulating mass of currency. 

It is, therefore, not surprising that the successive issues of 
green-backs during the war produced none of the disasters 
that orthodox financiers anticipated, but seemed to be the 
means of animating business and of increasing profits. 
There were plenty of people in the United States who, not 
understanding that the inflation caused by the green-backs 
was simply a consumption in anticipation of wealth which 
would have to be made good afterwards, were so enamoured 
of the process that they actually formed themselves into a 
Green-back party. 

The creation of an immense temporarily irredeemable 
currency, and afterwards the gradual redemption of it, gave 
to the United States Treasury Office a function which to the 
American masses appeared as a regulating of the supply of 
currency. They never considered that each market has at 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 87 

all times exactly as much currency (coin or its representa- 
tives) as it can carry, and that no human power can increase 
or diminish that quantity. They did not distinguish 
between capital, credit, and coin ; but, calling it all money, 
they jumped to the conclusion that in order to keep the 
country well supplied with money, the government had only 
to issue more currency. Thus, when interest was high, 
capital scarce, and credit unsatisfactory, the situation was 
described as scarcity of money, and the demand invariably 
was for more currency. 

As long as the demand for 6 more currency , was met by 
the increase of green-backs, it was of course found that new 
issues of these media of exchange simply reduced their 
value, and that the larger quantity was worth exactly as 
much as the smaller quantity, and cleared business to the 
same extent. From this fact, however, the Americans did not 
deduce the almost self-evident economic law which, by the 
action of the international rates of exchange, compels coin 
and its representatives to assume their natural level in the 
world's market. They came to a very different conclusion. 
Having found that representatives of coin first drove the 
coin out of the market and afterwards declined in value, 
they inferred that what they wanted was not representatives 
of coin, but the actual coin itself. 

Hence their bi-metallist proclivities. As the production 
of silver was on the increase, and the American dollar was 
originally a silver coin, it seemed an easy way to increase 
the currency, to lower interest, and to develop credit, simply 
by coining large quantities of silver. Hence the Silver Bills, 
which of course had to be repealed so soon as the inevitable 
results attained a dangerous development. 

As silver had fallen so considerably in value, the capitalists, 
and all people whose commercial position depended on 



88 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

claims against something or some one, naturally objected to 
the silver dollar assuming its intrinsic value. The gold 
value of the dollar was maintained, and the masses of newly 
coined silver dollars consequently affected the market as so 
many notes — all of which was not foreseen, or understood, 
by the American democracy. 

The constant efforts to glut the market with silver coin 
had of course a most disastrous effect on business. The 
value of the currency, as compared with goods, fell con- 
siderably, and the cost of production rose to a maximum. 
Production in America became difficult, and often unprofit- 
able, especially for the farmers, while foreign importation was 
strongly encouraged. A trade balance arose against America 
which had to be settled in coin. As the silver dollars had 
only their intrinsic value outside America, all the export of 
coin had to be accomplished in gold. In this manner, the 
excessive coining of silver had simply the effect of driving 
the gold out of the market. The reduced gold reserve 
caused confusion in trade and finance. So long as the over- 
filling of the market with silver coin proceeded, American 
trade suffered. In this fashion the currency mistakes of the 
American democracy have for years maintained an intense 
depression in all branches of American industry ; but, as 
usual, the farmers, the other natural trades, and the working 
classes, have been the chief sufferers. 

The banking of the United States has been legislated for 
and organised, in defiance of science, logic, economy, and 
experience, in complete obedience to the prevailing pre- 
judices among the democracy. At the beginning of the 
Republic, when the instinctive longing for freedom prevailed, 
there was a manifest desire that the banking should be left 
free to suit itself to the circumstances of the locality. But 
the Socialistic tendency of the American democracy soon 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 89 

made itself felt in the domain of banking. Several enact- 
ments emanated from Washington specially affecting the 
note-issuing private banks. Besides which, the different States 
passed special legislation. The object was to render the 
circulation safe, and as the remedy was the old one — State 
supervision — the results were the same old ones, namely, the 
very opposite of those desired. What the country wanted 
was healthy credit instruments ; what the banks supplied 
was mischievous paper currency. How, under such legisla- 
tion and supervision, banks cease to be banks and become 
usury establishments, will be fully explained in the chapter 
on Free Competition in the Supply of Capital to Labour. 
Here we shall only record that the government supervision 
of American issuing banks before 1838 had the usual effect 
of government supervision, namely, of deceiving the people 
as to the safety of the banks by inspections which could 
never be effective, without affording either depositors or note- 
holders any real protection. Thanks to the government 
supervision, the notes of each bank circulated indiscrimi- 
nately all over the country in paper-money fashion, and did 
not stay in their own markets as they would have done had 
they been credit instruments. Under such circumstances all 
the banks exerted themselves to issue as much of this paper 
money as they possibly could, and to do it the more effec- 
tively, they endeavoured to issue their notes in districts as 
far from their bank as possible. The inevitable results of 
such a system were over-issue and inflation. In 1838 the 
bubble burst, and almost every one of the note-issuing banks 
in the United States failed. 

One would have thought that, after such results from 
government meddling with banking, the American democracy 
would have had the courage and intelligence to fall back 
on liberty. All the more so as liberty had succeeded in 



90 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

Scotland to perfection, and there prevented the failure of 
any note-issuing bank during nearly a century and a half. 

But here again the longing for paternal government 
which has characterised modern democracies prevailed over 
reason and experience. Instead of making the banks free 
and placing them under the only control that is worth 
anything — the control of the shareholders, the depositors, 
and the public — more supervision was resorted to. The 
guarantee of the State was made absolute by limiting the 
issue of the private banks to the amount of United States 
bonds deposited by them with the State. In this manner the 
notes are rendered fairly safe, and a catastrophe like that of 
1838, though perfectly possible and even probable, will not 
spring from the old cause. The great evils of supervised 
issue have not disappeared, but have been intensified. 

A banking system which develops under such legislation can 
have none of the healthy methods of a free issuing banking 
system, but carries on its business purely on money-lending 
principles. This produces all the same difficulties that we 
experience in England, while the constant attempt to fill the 
market with paper money crushes the productive trades. 
The results of the American banking system are severance of 
capital from labour, no supply of capital to those who most 
need it and can best use it, excessively high cost of production, 
excessively low price of sale, a chronic want of money, high 
interest, flourishing usury, and a constant tendency to panic. 

It is not possible in the compass at our command to deal 
with the many other errors which the Americans, in com- 
mon with other democracies, have committed or themselves 
originated, such as monopolies, bounties, excises, bureaucratic 
domineering, obstacles to immigration, exclusion of China- 
men, etc. It must suffice to say that all such errors com- 
mitted by the legislature, in order to flatter the prejudices 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 91 

of the masses and to secure party advantages, tend to 
one and the same effect — depression in trade and poverty 
among the masses, that is to say, the very opposite of the 
results which democracy has at heart. 

While democratic rule has prevailed in France with some 
interruptions, and in America under an unchanged constitu- 
tion, for a century, the predominance of British democracy 
cannot fairly be said to have begun till the passing of the 
Household Suffrage Bill in 1867. The adherence to sound 
principles, and the marvellous material development, and the 
genuine progress which characterised the period between the 
Reform Bill of 1832 and Disraeli's ' leap in the dark , in 
1867, cannot be credited to the sagacity of the democracy : 
for the power was in the hands of the middle-class. After 
1867, and still more after 1884, when members of parliament 
and candidates had to gain the suffrage of the labourers, 
our politicians soon fell into the method of reasoning and 
the habit of speech of the continental demagogues. The 
circuitous and abstruse manner in which Individualism 
brings about the most perfect form of co-operation was 
by most of our legislators considered an unsuitable topic 
for platform purposes, and they yielded largely to the 
temptation of indulging in continental Socialistic clap- 
trap. 

Though, to begin with, their knowledge of sociology and 
economy probably prevented them from having any real 
faith in the principle of paternal government, it must be 
supposed that they talked themselves into believing in the 
fallacious doctrines they preached. For Socialistic talk 
soon blossomed into Socialistic measures. A host of bills 
was passed, all framed on the basis of the old French 
delusion that the State possesses inexhaustible financial 
resources of its own, independently of the sacrifices of the 



92 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

individuals who go to make up the State. Reforms were 
introduced which would not even be plausible except on the 
supposition that England's trade and industry were bound 
to maintain themselves and progress under any circumstances, 
even when all the conditions which had caused them to 
blossom forth were removed or changed. Such advantages 
over continental competition as we had in our liberties were 
supposed to be a kind of irremovable birthright, which we 
might keep even after having destroyed such liberties and 
adopted such Protective measures as had paralysed trade and 
industry in other countries. Social and economic evils 
began to be tackled in quite a new fashion. Instead of 
finding out and removing the causes, elaborate legislation 
was passed in order to suppress effects. The nation became 
so imbued with the paternal mission of government that, 
whenever an accident happened, or an anomaly revealed 
itself, the cry at once arose : ' It 's time that Government 
stepped in." 

Free Trade has not been abolished, but we have come so 
near to Protection that cabinet ministers in public speeches 
advocate the application of the Protective principle to 
everything except imports. 

The thin end of the Protectionist wedge was inserted into 
the imports in the shape of the Merchandise Marks Act. 
This absurd measure constitutes a concession to some of 
those prejudices which modern democracy seems incapable of 
shaking off. The Act was framed under the supposition 
that English products in every case are superior to foreign 
ones, and that the English public would buy less of foreign 
and more of English goods if the former were branded as 
foreign manufactures. The advantages to English manu- 
facturers, if any, were to arise from some sentimental feeling 
of patriotism — of course backed by utterly wrong economic 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 93 

reasoning — but the disadvantages to manufacturers, mer- 
chants, and shippers arose from actualities. 

Before the passing of the Act, British merchants sold at 
home and abroad British and foreign goods indiscriminately 
after stamping them all with their own brands. In this 
way British commerce all over the world swelled beyond 
Britain's power of production. Great continental in- 
dustries were made subservient and complementary to 
British firms, and a mass of European trade passed through 
British ports and was shipped in British vessels. The 
Merchandise Marks Act has changed all that. Now 
British manufacturers and merchants do, as they often 
did before, supply themselves with the cheapest qualities 
of goods from the Continent — say German. These have 
to be stamped with the German manufacturer's name, or 
else with the words 'made in Germany.' Our customers 
in other parts of the world, finding that some of the goods 
they buy in England are actually made in Germany, are 
unkind enough to act, not as our legislators supposed they 
would act, namely to write to England and insist upon 
having English goods, instead of German, but write direct 
to Germany and get their goods from there. You can trust 
the German business-man to keep a connection which the 
British Parliament is kind enough to send him. He first 
ships the cheap qualities to the neutral markets, now open- 
ing for him; he then offers better qualities and gradually 
gets the whole supply. If he cannot make the good 
qualities as well and as cheaply as they are made in Great 
Britain, he orders these from us on the condition that 
his own name and German address shall be affixed, and there 
is hardly any manufacturer, who, pressed by competition, 
would not consent to this condition. The Merchandise 
Marks Act certainly does not prevent him. But this is 



94 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

not all. Anxious to thrust aside British trade in all parts 
of the world, the German manufacturer stamps all his 
inferior qualities with English marks, and never allows the 
cheap rubbish he may buy in Great Britain to be stamped 
with his name and mark. These are allowed to go out 
under the English mark. In fact, the Merchandise Marks 
Act is fast reversing the position, compelling England to 
play second fiddle to her continental competitors. Such 
are the consequences to the country of our politicians yield- 
ing to democratic sentiment in matters of economy and 
business. In their attempt to teach patriotism to British 
merchants they have compelled them, against their will and 
their interests, to act an unpatriotic part. 

Before the extension of the Franchise in 1867, most 
British voters knew that all government interference, the 
object of which was to exterminate social evils by authori- 
tative measures, was certain to aggravate such evils. But, 
after the accession to power of the democracy, this truth seems 
to have been completely ignored. The antiquated, grotesque 
ideas of rendering the people virtuous and sober by Act of 
Parliament, and of rendering the working-classes prosperous 
by driving capital out of industry and out of the country, 
and by persecuting employers, do not appear to present any- 
thing illogical to the present generation. 

Thus, the Local Option Bill has gradually gained the 
suffrage of the new democracy to such an extent that 
Parliament has passed a resolution in favour of the principle. 
Our political leaders on the Liberal side have so utterly 
abandoned the habit of logical reasoning that they are 
willing to allow men to influence, and sometimes to deter- 
mine, the destiny of our huge Empire, but dare not trust 
these same men to regulate their own diet. What a 
humiliation to our colonies and dependencies that they 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 95 

shall in many things have to obey the dictates of voters 
in England who are too weak and foolish to keep sober, 
without being led, supported, and protected from tempta- 
tion by the authorities ! As to the main object of this 
essentially democratic measure, general sobriety, it will of 
course not be attained. The already accomplished restric- 
tions and regulations of the Liquor Traffic have already, as 
is emphasised in the chapter on Free Trade in Drink, clearly 
indicated that the result of this form of government interfer- 
ence will, as usual with such legislation, tend in the opposite 
direction. Private drinking-clubs have proved a new evil 
worse than the old one. But such facts have so far been 
powerless to deter the modern democracy from their inter- 
fering policy, because this is the outcome of sentiment and 
not of reason. 

The sentimental legislation, inaugurated by our democrats 
and sanctioned for party reasons by the bulk of our politi- 
cians, has driven hundreds of millions sterling out of the 
country, to be invested abroad in dangerous, and often 
ruinous, undertakings, instead of creating employment for 
British workers at home ; it has persecuted industry to such 
a degree as to cause large works, and part of whole branches, 
to be removed to the Continent ; it has protected the work- 
ing-men so well against employers as to cause thousands of 
the latter to withdraw from business and render employment 
scarce. It has so supervised our factories that important 
branches of industry have been driven out of them to take 
refuge in the homes of the workers, where the work is accom- 
plished under immense discomfort, at sweating wages, to the 
benefit of numerous middle-men which the system involves ; 
it has interfered with shipping with the result of causing 
British ships to be manned by foreign sailors, and even lately 
to be commanded by foreign officers. While politicians 



96 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

and agitators, who claim to represent the democracy of the 
country, have thus inflicted on the masses of the people 
extreme suffering and privation by their sins of commis- 
sion, and, while they threaten to aggravate matters enor- 
mously by the execution of their present programme, they 
have made themselves responsible for a far larger mass of 
evils by their sins of omission. By leaving untouched 
during half a century such causes of depression and poverty, 
as are exposed in this volume, they have been instrumental 
in rendering a deplorably large proportion of the nation 
destitute and unhappy. They have shortened many millions 
of good lives. They have caused thousands of suicides, tens 
of thousands of crimes, and hundreds of thousands of deaths 
by starvation. 

Let it be well understood that while such a mass of past, 
present, and future suffering must be laid at the door of the 
British democracy and its leaders, this work has not for its 
aim nor its mission, to accuse them of any vile motives or 
unpatriotic objects. Any impartial student of recent history 
will recognise that if our democrats have been the chief 
actors in the retrograde movement of the last twenty years, 
they have been aided and abetted, tempted and egged on by 
all the parties of the State. The conclusions drawn from 
the past and present must not be that the British democracy 
has rendered itself unworthy to preside over the destiny ot 
the British Empire ; for, if this were the case, what would 
become of the Empire ? Dynasties, oligarchies, aristocracies 
and plutocracies, have been weighed and found wanting, and 
if the democracy of Great Britain — in which term we would 
fain include every freedom-loving Englishman — cannot rise 
to the height of the situation, the grand mission of the 
British race has come to an end. 

The redeeming feature in the position is that the British 



THE ERRORS OF DEMOCRACY 97 

democracy, in the wider sense of the term, has its interests 
so closely bound up with those of the Empire as to render 
patriotism and self-preservation identical. The mass of 
errors committed by the British and foreign democracies 
has not arisen from the desire to produce any of those 
deplorable results we see everywhere, but from sheer ignor- 
ance as to the best means of accomplishing the opposite. 
To throw as strong a light as possible on these means 
should therefore be the endeavour of every patriotic Briton : 
for only thus can a policy be formed which will be bene- 
ficial to the Empire through being directly beneficial to 
each individual. 



IV 

THE HAVEN OF SOCIALISM 

Socialism is one of those terms which has led to endless and 
eminently unsatisfactory discussion, because its meaning 
has never been defined. The term Socialism is only com- 
prehensible when it is supposed to stand for a system of 
government and division of labour embodying all, or at 
least the majority, of those attributes which its votaries 
claim to be attainable by its means. To discuss Socialism, 
with regard to its merits and demerits, we ought to have 
some experience of a completely Socialistic state, or, in de- 
fault of such, a complete Socialistic constitution. The world 
has seen neither. It is probable that if a thorough experi- 
ment with Socialism were made, or if a complete Socialistic 
constitution, with all its working details, were drawn up 
and acknowledged as the only workable one, there would be 
hardly any Socialists. As it is, however, every man is free 
to conjure up in his imagination any delightful state of 
things he chooses and call his visions Socialism. 

It is natural that a reform, in which everybody imagines 
he will find the realisation of his ideals and his pet schemes, 
without any of the drawbacks which practical experience 
and systematic planning reveal, should gain adherents so 
long as its advocates limit themselves to generalities and 
hazy prophecies. The fact that one social reformer insists 
upon features which another condemns, that one school holds 



THE HAVEN OF SOCIALISM 99 

conditions essential which another considers of no import- 
ance, that many of the most logical Socialists recognise so 
far insurmountable obstacles that the more imaginative ones 
decline to discuss at all, — all this has not prevented Socialism 
from being talked and written about as something real and 
possible. One would have thought that at the very first 
mention of a reform of such magnitude as the advent of 
Socialism, politicians, philosophers, and scientists would have 
at once either demanded, or supplied, an exact definition of 
the system and tangible proofs of its possibility. But, while 
no such definition nor such proofs are forthcoming, the 
number of Socialists is increasing, parties are formed to 
further the advent of Socialism, politicians speak about it 
as the final goal of progress, professors treat of it as a 
coming evolution in the progress of man, philosophers write 
about it as inevitable in the future, and poets sing its 
blessings in rhapsodical verse. 

Though it is surprising that, in our practical age, so many 
sensible people should have been thrown off their guard and 
carried away by a mere cry, there are a host of explanations 
for the speed with which Socialism is making converts. 
Modern political development in all civilised countries 
having, as already hinted at in this work, increased con- 
siderably, political ideas conjured up by the imagination 
unsupported by defective reasoning, but flattering to the 
poor and the oppressed, have naturally become popular. 
The spread of education has opened the eyes of the people 
to their degradation, and caused them to question the 
justice of a system which heaps immense fortunes on some 
and utter misery on others. The increasing difficulties for 
the hard-working, able, and thrifty man to make his way 
in the world, while capital is assuming an ever-growing 
and an ever more corrupting influence, have caused a deep 



[Lore. 



100 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

distrust in that individual freedom which, only fifty years 
ago, was the hope of the destitute classes of Europe. The 
decay of religious belief — at least in the old forms — and the 
growth of what may be called the religion of humanity, has 
quickened consciences regarding their duties towards them- 
selves and their fellow-beings. Large political parties 
which, during half a century, have kept their followers 
together by promises of better trade, higher wages, and less 
poverty, have found it necessary to change, sometimes to 
reverse, their programmes, and, devoid of sound economic 
theories, to fall back on Socialistic measures. Wealthy 
influential classes and churches, in dread of the public dis- 
content, and evidently expecting some new social order, 
have deemed it good diplomacy to favour anti-economic 
and Socialistic views by advocating Socialistic measures as 
so many sops to the democratic Cerberus. 

Under such circumstances, it is not to be wondered at that 
the great majority of the masses, extremely accessible in 
their emotional nature, who are just in their aspirations, 
charitable in their views, but slow to reason, should begin 
to pin their faith to Socialism. Nor is it surprising that 
writers and poets should reflect the ideas of our time, and 
shun logical exertions which would only serve to diminish 
their popularity. 

In this country, there are people whose consciences and 
prudence do not permit them to remain indifferent to either 
the miseries of the destitute classes, or to the growing class- 
hatred. Both as Christians, and as citizens, they feel im- 
pelled to exert themselves according to their best ability 
on behalf of their suffering and complaining brethren. 
These people are active in promoting some kind of social 
catastrophe by their constant advocacy of some mild form 
of Socialism. 



THE HAVEN OF SOCIALISM 101 

The mischief lies not so much in actual measures they 
succeed in getting passed, as in the conclusions that must 
be drawn from their views. They acknowledge two pre- 
misses from which they themselves draw one conclusion, but 
from which the suffering masses draw another ; they acknow- 
ledge, firstly, the existence of a mass of unmerited wealth 
and unmerited poverty; and, secondly, that charity, voluntary 
or compulsory on the part of the rich, can alone benefit the 
poor. The conclusion they draw is that capitalists, land- 
lords, and employers should be made to sacrifice some small 
part of their superfluous wealth to those who earn in- 
sufficient to provide decently for themselves and their 
families. 

But the conclusion which is drawn by the underpaid 
workers is that capitalists, landlords, and employers are 
guilty of un- Christian selfishness in not sharing their wealth 
with the poor as the Christian religion prescribes. The 
result of such premisses and such conclusions is that the 
great majority of the British working- classes — taught to 
believe that their condition cannot be improved except at 
the expense of another class, and hating the idea of receiv- 
ing charity — listen willingly to the advocates of Socialism 
in the hope of finding a rational method for the better 
distribution of wealth. 

On the other hand, there are people who look upon the 
increasing demand for Socialism as a momentary popular 
craze void of any significant results. They say that no such 
change is required, that the working-classes are better off 
than ever, that provisions are cheaper, wages higher, educa- 
tion free, indirect taxes lowered, and the standard of living 
generally raised. 

Enough has been said in periodicals and excellent books 
about the poverty prevailing among our workers. Those 



102 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

who think that everything is satisfactory in our labourers' 
homes have only to personally visit the be-sweated workers 
in our slums, in our manufacturing districts, and on our 
hill- sides, to find that the outward aspect is as saddening as 
the statistics. But the question before us is not affected by 
the prevalence of more or less poverty. Our immediate future 
depends, not on what the working-man ought to have, but 
on what he will be satisfied with, considering that he holds 
the balance of power. But, still, it ought to be pointed out 
to those who reject all ideas of reform that it is not the 
actual number of poor and unemployed which constitutes 
the danger for the future, but rather the fact that so many 
of our great industries prove incapable of yielding any 
profits, and that others only exist by means of the Sweating 
system. Fortunately the number of the laisser faire people 
is fast diminishing ; for their attempts to take a rosy view 
of the situation exasperates the victims of our present system, 
and intensifies their longing for the leap into that darkness 
called Socialism. 

Under such circumstances, it behoves every Englishman 
to make up his mind as to his attitude towards our modern 
Socialistic experimentalism. It should be borne in mind 
that the question is one of logic and not one of sentiment, 
and that the Socialistic agitation has gathered great strength 
from the support given to it by a large number of kind- 
hearted noble men and women. The vulgar abuse which 
too often is meted out to professed Socialists is, therefore, 
out of place, especially as the most sincere and most intelli- 
gent of them frankly confess that they do not themselves 
see how the Socialistic ideals can be realised, but that their 
faith in Providence and humanity prompts them to hope 
that the onward movement of the race will one day disclose 
the right methods. 



THE HAVEN OF SOCIALISM 10S 

It is, therefore, not sufficient to prove that Socialism, 
such as it is prescribed to us now, is impossible because 
illogical. It is necessary to show by word and deed that a 
continuation of our progress towards personal liberty opens 
up for our race a brighter prospect than the most elaborate 
Collectivism could foreshadow. 

If the main features of Socialism could be realised, the 
evils which they would produce would not be so much the 
disappearance of the so-called privileges of certain people 
and certain classes — such as private ownership of land, 
extensive inherited rights, and huge fortunes — but rather 
an extreme intensification of the evils from which humanity 
now suffers. 

The Socialistic schemes, constructed as they are by people of 
glowing imagination and slight critical power, are character- 
ised by that simplicity and disregard for scientific facts 
which is the great charm of children's make-believe games. 
If a child were to play at making an island or a country 
happy and virtuous, it would at once suppose that imagi- 
nary State to be governed by a very good king who would 
prevent all wickedness, coerce everybody into being good, 
give every family a nice little house, beautiful cattle, a 
charming little garden, and plenty of money. The child 
would not ask from where the good king would get all 
these things, and would be incapable of conceiving why 
such generosity on the part of a monarch with an in- 
exhaustible purse should cause demoralisation and corrup- 
tion among his subjects. 

The imaginings of our kind-hearted Socialist run in the 
same groove. All he wants, firstly, is a perfect government, 
which has no other object than to render the people happy, 
and no capacity for making any mistakes at all; and, 
secondly, a perfect people, incapable of being corrupted 



104 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

or demoralised by all such methods of government which 
hitherto have, in every case that history relates, proved too 
much for human nature. If we condense all the far-fetched 
and roundabout ideas of the Socialists, we find that, accord- 
ing to them, Socialism elevates and improves the character 
of the people to such an extent that they will be both able 
and willing to establish a perfect government, a perfect 
bureaucracy, and a perfect police. On the other hand, 
that the perfect government, the perfect bureaucracy, and 
the perfect police will render the people perfect. 

No reason is ever supplied to prove that eithei the 
government or the people would be perfect under a 
Socialistic system, but these desiderata are taken for 
granted, and are made the premisses for long disserta- 
tions on the advantages that would result in a country 
thus favoured. Even serious writers, who aim at being 
nothing if not scientific, seem to base their reasoning on 
the same loose foundations. They never seem to doubt 
that Socialism would involve more justice to the toilers, 1 
better economic results, a wise and benevolent government, 
and a completely submissive people. They see no in- 
congruities in Socialistic romances, from which they even 
quote, and of which they always write, as if Collectivism 
were the next inevitable step in the development of our race. 

Though Socialism is everything to all men, there are 
certain points which seem accepted by all its votaries. We 
shall examine some of these in turn, leaving, however, the 
State ownership of land until we come to the chapter on 
6 Free Trade in Land.' 

Under a Socialistic system, all the implements of produc- 
tion would be owned by the State, and consequently the 
State would be the universal employer, the universal pro- 
ducer, and the universal distributor. For, without imple- 



THE HAVEN OF SOCIALISM 105 

ments of production nobody could produce anything, 
and, unable to produce, nobody could distribute anything 
except the State. All defenders of Socialism would re- 
pudiate any reference to past experience of such a system, 
such as the Syrian and Egyptian empires, or any State in 
which the workers have been property-less slaves, or to 
modern experiments, such as Louis Blanc's national work- 
shops. They argue that the Socialistic administration they 
desire to establish will be different from anything hitherto 
tried, and that its essential attributes will be benevolence 
and j ustice. Later on, we shall show how impossible it is 
to obtain, in a Socialistic State, such a fatherly government ; 
but for the sake of argument, we will suppose that such a 
government has been secured and fairly started. 

The first question which then arises is, How shall the 
work be distributed? Who is to have the pleasant work 
and who is to have the unpleasant ? To change about 
would be impracticable, because each trade requires not only 
special physical and mental qualities, but also special train- 
ing. If there is a rush for the most agreeable occupations 
either on the part of the workers themselves, or on the part 
of the parents of future workers, who shall decide? Of 
course the government. When the decision is taken, who 
shall make the recalcitrant accept the unpleasant work? 
Of course the government. A strong fellow, with a decided 
taste for artisticalor office work, would, in deference to his 
weaker competitors, have to be sent down into a coal mine, 
into a sewer, into manure works, into the stoke-hole, or 
before the mast. As the daily bread of the whole nation 
and the cost of a gigantic administration would have to be 
provided for by the work of the people, it would be treason 
to the State to allow hesitation or objection, but instan- 
taneous obedience and military discipline would have to be 



106 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

exacted. As in the matter of distribution of work, the 
majority would be dissatisfied, and as any combination on 
their part might bring about great confusion in the State, 
the means of coercion must be provided on a very extensive 
scale. 

The plan which has been suggested, that all the work in 
the State should be done by young people under a certain 
age, would in no way remove their, or their parents'*, objec- 
tions to certain disagreeable trades, and would on financial 
grounds be utterly impracticable, because, as will be shown 
later, the people would be required to produce an immense 
amount of wealth, and hard and prolonged work would ever 
be necessary. 

Another suggestion is that those who work in unpleasant 
trades should be compensated by working proportionately 
shorter hours. How many hours a day should, then, be 
exacted from the stoker in order to render his berth as 
desirable as that of the captain ? Applied to shipping, 
this principle would demand so many stokers, and so many 
common sailors before the mast, as to fill the steamer, or 
else it would be necessary to ship constant new and in- 
experienced hands. In any case, it would be impossible 
for any English steamers to compete with those of a non- 
Socialistic country. 

If, again, the miner were to have his hours reduced until 
his occupation was as attractive as that of the artist, the 
musician, the cashier, the manager, and the English ambas- 
sador abroad, what would be the cost of coals ? They 
would be at least ten times dearer than at present, and in 
that case what would become of railways, our industries, and 
our shipping ? Even, if we suppose that money and money- 
prices were abolished, and that the whole world were one 
Socialistic State, so as to get rid of the difficulty of import 



THE HAVEN OF SOCIALISM 107 

and export, the economic price of coal would, even under 
such circumstances, be a cause of intense poverty for the 
whole race. The enormous number of miners which would 
be required, all living as they would expect to do, on the 
same comfortable footing as the foremost individual in the 
State, would consume an amount of wealth terribly out of 
proportion to that which they would produce. And as the 
majority of the people would be in the same position — 
consuming largely and producing next to nothing — where 
would the wealth come from ? 

Such, and a hundred similar difficulties, would confront 
the government at every step towards the solution of the 
problem of labour distribution. There would be only one 
way to overcome them, namely, to enroll the most powerful 
and the most reckless of the male population into a police 
force and a standing army, and grant them such privileges 
as would secure discipline. Only with such coercive power 
could a Socialistic government solve the problem of division of 
labour in a manner compatible with the continued existence 
of the State. 

It stands to reason that, if labour distribution were to be 
carried out according to military principles, the motive-power 
— discipline — must be there. Of course it would be necessary 
to lay extra work on the shoulders of the people, in order to 
maintain the police and the standing army. 

But the question of the allotment of tasks would be an 
easy one compared to that of providing an incentive to hard 
work. Piece-work, which in England has proved indispen- 
sable in face of foreign competition, would, of course, be 
inapplicable. The Socialists trust to the patriotism and 
sense of duty of each citizen. But how about those who 
would fancy themselves unjustly dealt with, who were in 
opposition to the government in power, those who wished 



108 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

to displace their immediate overseers, and those who objected 
to compulsory work on principle ? Would not their sense 
of duty and their patriotism induce them to work as little 
as possible ? Would not the sense of j ustice in every man 
insist upon his being allowed to work as little as possible ? 
And would not any extra exertion on the part of a few 
individuals allow others to lapse into laziness ? Under our 
present system, when a man has every inducement to exert 
himself to the utmost, when poverty, suffering, and disgrace 
threaten him on the one hand, and when on the other, 
success, comfort, wealth, luxury, and pleasure beckon him 
on, millions of people neglect their opportunities, and prefer 
momentary indulgence in laziness or congenial occupations 
to hard work. What would it, then, be when all these 
incentives to work have disappeared and nothing remains to 
urge on the worker, except the thought that by working 
hard he permits his fellow-men to gain more rest ? 

With the government as the universal employer, it would 
therefore be absolutely necessary to make the work com- 
pulsory. Here, again, it is evident that if a whole State is 
managed on the principles of Domestic Economy, such in- 
centives to work must be applied as they are applied in the 
farm and in the factory. There the incentive is the fear of 
fines and dismissals, not applicable to a Socialistic State. 
None, therefore, remain except the lash. 

Writers on Socialism are apt to dwell on the economic 
advantages that would result from production under a 
Socialistic system, whereby such waste would be avoided 
as sometimes follows from free competition and specula- 
tion. They also dwell on the advantages of obviating over- 
production, of dispensing with middle-men, and of manufac- 
turing on the grandest possible scale. But we seldom hear or 
read anything about the terrible drawbacks which are bound 



THE HAVEN OF SOCIALISM 109 

to attend State-organised production and the employment of 
labourers who cannot be fined, dismissed, or encouraged by 
higher wages and promotion. All experience that we have 
of State-managed production has revealed a host of impedi- 
ments and difficulties. With regard to the often referred 
to difference between the cost of a man-of-war built by 
government and one built by private enterprise, we shall 
only point out that the Admiralty manages all its construc- 
tion on Individualist principles, employing all the same 
incentives to work as private producers employ; also that 
government shipbuilding nowadays proceeds in competition 
with private builders, under the control of a free and un- 
hampered Press. Some years ago a First Lord of the 
Admiralty declared in Parliament that he was well aware 
of the abuses and defects in the administration of the Navy, 
but that it was impossible to eradicate them, as any attempt 
to do so might endanger the management of the whole 
department. 

When such are the effects of bureaucratic earner aderie and 
clannishness in a government department of a free country, 
with a free Press, and where the government's employees 
freely acknowledge themselves to be the servants of the 
public, what would they be in a country where the officials 
had almost unlimited power over the individual, where the 
Press was in their own hands, and where military discipline 
was extended to every action, and to every feature in the life 
of the people ? 

It might not be fair to judge of Socialistic production by 
such government establishments, here and abroad, in which 
productive work is carried on, but a glance at the financial 
results of such institutions as prisons and workhouses shows 
to what an extent official management tends to wastefulness, 
even when submitted to the control of a free nation and a 



110 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

free Press. Some years ago the accounts of a workhouse in 
one of our big cities showed over <£! 00,000 expenses, while 
the amount of the sale products came to about £60. Such 
an amazing result is, of course, largely due to the fact that 
production is a secondary consideration in workhouses and 
prisons, and that the authorities yield to the popular pre- 
judice against systematic productive work in such govern- 
ment establishments. But probably nobody will assert that 
the fear of competing with the trades of the country should 
necessarily compel complete paralysis in such a huge wealth- 
producing agency. 

Abroad, where public opinion has no power to prevent 
industries being carried on by prisoners, and where these are 
fed, clothed, and housed in the cheapest and crudest fashion, 
and where the overseers have unlimited coercive powers, the 
expenses of prisons enormously exceed the value of their 
productions. 

Advocates of Socialism often point to now existing 
government departments as illustrating successful official 
administration, such as the English Post-Office, Continental 
State Railways, etc. To understand how valueless such 
illustrations are in the advocacy of Socialism, it suffices to 
remember that such government departments are not pro- 
ductive ; their effectiveness cannot be tested by the per- 
centage with which the cost of production of merchandise 
exceeds, or falls below, its real value. Besides, they cannot 
be considered as samples of Socialism, because their effective- 
ness is entirely the result of the Individualist system which 
surrounds them. They are, like isolated Socialistic organisms, 
floating in the midst of an Individualist sea from which 
they gather their sustenance and their energy, by means of 
which they purify and transform themselves, and by which 
they are controlled, chastened, and confined. 



THE HAVEN OF SOCIALISM 111 

The great mistake committed by the votaries of Socialism 
is not to distinguish between Co-operation and Socialism. It 
is natural that such a mistake, persistently adhered to, should 
bias their views of every detail in social organisation. The 
fundamental idea of Socialism is improved co-operation, and 
it is only because the Socialists cannot see their way to 
arrive at a system of free co-operation, satisfactory to all 
the members of the community, that they have fallen back on 
the desperate plan of substituting an artificial co-operation 
based on compulsion, and managed by bureaucrats. 

It is, therefore, natural that when they find our present 
system, which they choose to call Individualist, working un- 
satisfactorily to the whole, or a portion, of the community, 
they should fall back on compulsory co-operation, or 
Socialism. What they do not see is that the gains of 
extended co-operation by compulsion are entirely swamped 
by the losses, which are inseparable from the destruction of 
personal liberty. 

Now, the advantages which government departments — or 
municipal administration — afford spring entirely from the 
principle of co-operation, and the drawbacks, difficulties, 
annoyances, and persecutions from the Socialistic principle. 

Let us instance the supply of gas. It is far better for a 
community to co-operate in the production and distribution 
of gas than to leave each house to manufacture its own gas. 
The advantages are saving of capital, time, space, and 
trouble ; that is to say, the general advantages of co- 
operation. But, if the gas-works are established on 
Socialistic principles, many of these advantages are jeopar- 
dised, and a whole series of disadvantages crop up. If the 
gas is bad and dear, the consumer has no other redress than 
a complaint against the gas authorities. These, anxious to 
avoid any inquiry into the management, will jealously pro- 



112 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

tect themselves against complaints. Their monopoly and 
their authority render it easy for them to worry a rebellious 
consumer. The consumer, in order to get the better of the 
gas authorities, must appeal to the municipal authorities ; 
and as the gas authorities in a Socialistic State are sure to 
exercise a far greater influence over the municipal authorities 
than the consumer, there is very little chance of redress. His 
only remedy then is to agitate, possibly in conjunction with 
other discontented consumers, against the municipal autho- 
rities. If he and his friends do not succeed in defeating: 
these, they must submit to them ; for, in case of any revolt 
which the municipal authorities cannot quell, these will 
appeal to the government of the country for support. The 
discontented consumer has, therefore, no other remedy than 
to agitate against the government, which, however, though 
against him in the gas question, might better represent his 
opinion in general than the Opposition. 

The difficulty of obtaining redress is not the only one 
which would dog a Socialistic gas-works. The gas authorities 
would not allow any private production of gas for home 
consumption, and far less any sale of gas from private works. 
Working for the good of the community, they would resist 
any infringement of the monopoly with at least the same 
deplorable zeal as the English Post-Office has recently dis- 
played against private enterprises of great utility to the 
public. All new inventions would be resisted as so many 
sources of trouble to the gas authorities. The use of lamps 
and electric light might easily become a government question. 
The change of a gasometer, the laying of a few new pipes, 
and hundreds of other details would, more or less, depend 
on government influence, and the position of the parties in 
Parliament. 

If the Socialists could be made to understand to what 



THE HAVEN OF SOCIALISM 113 

perfection co-operation could be brought, when supported, 
carried on and developed by those powerful impulses of 
energy, intelligence, and invention which come into operation 
under a completely free system, they would be co-operators 
and not Socialists. Unfortunately they regard our present 
system, with its many Socialistic features, its monopolies, its 
government meddling, its defective defence of individual 
liberty, as a fair pattern of a free system, and do not 
understand that we now live in a half-way house towards 
Socialism, and suffer accordingly. 

Another point on which the Socialistic school seem to 
agree is that the products of national labour must be fairly 
distributed among the inhabitants of the country, or, at 
least, among those who have fulfilled their duty to the State. 
But, as to the manner in which this distribution should be 
effected, great difference of opinion exists. Until some 
understanding regarding a practical method of sharing 
between the inhabitants the results of the common work 
is arrived at, all Socialistic speculations are vain, because a 
fair remuneration for labour is the central idea in Socialism. 
All the plans that have been suggested for Socialistic distri- 
bution may be ranged under two heads : namely, firstly, 
distribution without any right of private possessions whatso- 
ever ; secondly, distribution with right to private property 
in products, but not in implements of production, raw 
materials, and capital in general. 

The only practical way of solving the problem of distri- 
bution in a Socialistic State is to prohibit absolutely private 
possession of not only the means of production but of every- 
thing. But this method involves the necessity of all the 
individuals of the State living in houses of exactly the same 
size and kind, the uniformity broken only according to the 
number of the family ; it involves a distribution of similar 

H 



114 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

food, similar clothes, similar drinks, similar books, similar 
luxuries — if any — to every individual. Any exceptions or 
deviations from the general uniformity would constitute a 
cause for just complaints, if not for a dangerous revolt. 
And yet, on the first day of such a system, most serious 
difficulties would present themselves. 

Invalids and delicate people would have to be given 
provisions, wines, and comforts which it would be ruinous to 
the State to give to all. The question of determining who 
were invalids, who were delicate, would probably have to be 
left to the official doctors, and it can easily be imagined what 
enormous power these men would acquire. It is extremely 
likely that those citizens who served the community with 
their brains would claim a higher standard of luxury and 
comfort than the manual labourers. It is impossible for 
any mortal to imagine a State where the Prime Minister 
and all the high officials would receive exactly the same 
wage as the ploughboy. Would not the official position, 
with its duties of large hospitality, social expensiveness, and 
display, form a good excuse for the officials to vote themselves 
large supplies? But once the principle of complete uniformity 
is infringed to the smallest extent, a social evolution would 
at once set in which would reach its climax in the separation 
of the nation into two classes — the administrative class and 
the working-class — the patricians and the plebeians of old. 

The possession of private books, works of art, collections 
of rare and interesting objects, personal ornaments, pet 
animals, etc., would of course be out of the question. Such 
possessions would speedily re-establish the old private pro- 
perty system, because it would lead to hoardings, barters, 
exchanges, and generally stimulate the instinct of accumu- 
lation. If any accumulations were at all allowed, the 
frugal and clever people would become wealthy, and 



THE HAVEN OF SOCIALISM 115 

speedily influential enough to manipulate the election of 
the officials, and soon turn themselves into a ruling caste. 
Any hoarding, or accumulation of distributed products, and 
even of such objects as the individuals themselves produce in 
spare time in their homes, would have to be prevented by 
constant inspection. 

Those Socialists who have any mind at all for economic 
questions are well aware that the absolute prohibition of 
private ownership in products is practically impossible, and 
that, if it could be accomplished, it would bring about a con- 
dition for the people which would bear an alarming analogy 
to that of convicts. While, therefore, in their Utopias they 
maintain State ownership of the means of production, they 
permit private ownership in products. In fact, some of the 
prophetic visions of future Socialistic communities derive all 
their charm from the inclusion of this Individualist feature. 

But the authors of these fictions and their disciples do not 
perceive that by leaving the door ajar to Individualism, they 
make it easy for the force of circumstances and for the 
natural instincts of man to reassert the rights of personal 
liberty. 

Mr. Bellamy in his book Looking Backward is especially 
guilty of this inconsistency. Having, according to his opinion, 
consolidated his Socialistic State by prohibiting, or exclud- 
ing, the use of money, and finding a certain amount of 
individual liberty and private ownership absolutely necessary, 
in order to render life bearable, and also that private owner- 
ship means exchanges and bargains, he introduces a medium 
of exchange of his own invention. It consists of a card re- 
presenting the right to a certain amount of products, the 
delivery of which is marked on the card by punchings. 

It will be patent at a glance to any student of Economy 
that these cards differ from our present media of exchange 



116 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

only in form and not in nature. Surely, it would have been 
better if the inhabitants of his Utopia had received ordinary 
cheque-books, as in this way accounts could have been kept 
much more accurately and even the smallest purchases more 
correctly recorded. Only, had this practical method been 
suggested, the return to Individualism would have been 
manifestly flagrant, and Individualism and not Socialism 
would have got the credit for the attractiveness of his Utopia. 

Private ownership in products would, in a Socialistic 
State, soon lead to Individualism. According to Mr. 
Bellamy's own plan, each individual entitled to a portion of 
the general products would be paid in the above-mentioned 
cards. In what way he would spend the card would then 
rest with the holder. He would be at liberty to spend his 
card in eatables, wines, and other articles of consumption, or 
to buy furniture, precious metals, ornaments, or works of art. 
He would even be able, if he thought fit, to purchase for the 
whole of his card such articles as he might believe destined 
to become scarce, and therefore more valuable, such as rare 
books and prints, pieces of furniture by renowned makers, 
wines of extra good vintages, certain brands of cigars, dogs 
or horses of select breed, etc. In fact, he might speculate. 

While thus one imprudent man spends his card in personal 
indulgences, another rapidly accumulates possessions. The 
time soon comes when the careless man's card is punched all 
over — that is to say, when his money is exhausted, and when 
he cannot obtain any more supplies from the State ware- 
houses, except against hard work or as an object of State 
charity. Both the one and the other would label him as an 
inferior human being, and, in order to keep his character, he 
would naturally come to some arrangement with those who 
had plenty of unpunched cards and large stores. He 
might borrow at interest, buy on credit, leaving the seller a 



THE HAVEN OF SOCIALISM 117 

profit, or render services to the possessor of the coveted 
goods. 

In this manner the old discrepancy of resources would be 
speedily re-established. Such Acts as the government could 
pass to delay the process would be of little avail. If 
bargains, promises to pay, sale-contracts, were made void, 
or even prohibited, this would only facilitate transactions, 
because in that case debts and liabilities would be as 
promptly and willingly acknowledged as are gambling debts 
nowadays. 

The whole experience of humanity demonstrates how 
impossible it is by Act of Parliament to root up honesty 
from a man's soul. 

According to Mr. Bellamy's plan, we should thus have a 
community divided into rich and poor, differing from the 
present state of things only in so far that the poor man, 
crippled with debt and in honour bound to hand over to the 
rich man all that his cards allowed him to draw from the 
State stock, would not be permitted to use his energy for 
the purpose of getting out of debt, but would have to 
surrender all his work to the State. If the State paid him 
badly — which would be extremely likely as soon as he 
attained a certain age, the bulk of the work in the Utopia 
being assigned to the young people — he would not be at 
liberty to work for his own account or for any private 
employer, as the system would preclude the possession of 
private tools and implements. 

It is of course essential to the maintenance of a Socialistic 
system that the transmission of fortunes by inheritance 
should be prohibited, as otherwise a discrepancy of re- 
sources would rapidly develop. But is it possible to prevent 
by legislation the transmission of worldly goods from father 
to son so long as private ownership is allowed? State 



118 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

confiscation could be avoided by the simple process of a father 
handing over his property to his children prior to his death. 

Free gifts between individuals could not be prevented, if 
private ownership were to be respected at all. 

It will, therefore, be evident that private ownership in 
products would soon divide the population, in a Socialistic 
State, into two camps — the rich creditors and the poor 
debtors. Such a state of things would of course powerfully 
militate against the continuance of Socialism. The rich 
would be anxious to free themselves from the interference 
with their fortunes on the part of the Government and from 
the corvee which the Socialistic State would expect them 
and their children to perform personally. The poor would 
be anxious to be free to employ their power and their 
ability with more profit to themselves than the State could 
give them, in order to have at least the chance of escaping 
from indebtedness, and to attain to the same position as the 
rich. There would, in fact, be few people eager to continue 
the Socialistic system after its main object — social and 
economic equality — had failed to be fulfilled. 

Nothing, perhaps, in the Socialistic theories is more hazy 
and illogical than the manner in which the indispensable 
perfection in government is to be attained. It seems that, in 
order to give the people a control over the government, it is 
to be elected on a similar system to the present one, with the 
only difference that the franchise should be extended as widely 
as possible. 

Such dependence of the government on popular opinion 
constitutes a practical safeguard for the people in an Indi- 
vidualistic State, like the United Kingdom, but would 
become a farce in a Socialistic State. The Socialists forget 
that they intend to give to their government a power 
incomparably larger than any government in the world ever 



THE HAVEN OF SOCIALISM 119 

wielded, and that their idea, therefore, of giving to the 
people unlimited control over the government, while they 
give to the government unlimited control over the people, is 
self-contradictory. Once a Socialistic Government estab- 
lished, the difference in the condition of the ruling officials 
and the working people would be so striking that all able 
men among the people would strive to become officials, and 
all officials would strive to maintain their position. The 
officials would, therefore, naturally combine, and, having 
absolute control of all the resources of the country, and the 
power to order every individual about, their political influ- 
ence would be incomparably larger than that of the workers. 
Besides, in a State where work is compulsory, the officials 
would have powerful means of coercion at their elbow 
ready to crush out any insubordination. The workers, on 
the other hand, would not be able to assert the right of 
opposition, as they would have no halls to meet in, no 
means by which to carry on an organisation, and no free 
Press to represent their opinions. In what way then would 
opposition be able to check the governing officials ? 

Even if we take for granted that, despite their demoralis- 
ing power, the officials would develop those noble natures, 
which Socialists presuppose, to such an extent as to resign 
their position and to resume their places among the workers 
without any struggle to retain their privileges, there still 
remains the chapter of mistaken opinions. Would not, in a 
community where both production and distribution were 
organised on a system of military discipline, the slightest 
sign of opposition endanger the welfare of the whole nation ? 
Might not a President, a Prime Minister, or a whole body 
of officials, look upon any attempt to oust them as the 
beginning of a general chaos ? and would not, in such a case, 
their duty and their patriotism prompt them to save the 



120 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

country by retaining the power and omitting the formality 
of elections ? 

In descriptions of Socialistic Utopias, where such teach- 
ings of experience as are here given have been disregarded, 
many other things have been ignored. We never find it 
even hinted at as to what would be the relations between a 
Socialistic State and other States, be they Socialistic or not. 
Would export and import be carried on with merchandise 
produced under government supervision and with that liberal 
remuneration to the workers of which the Socialists dream ? 
Or would the Socialistic State sacrifice all the benefits of 
foreign trade ? When each country, perhaps each province, 
is administered on the principles of Domestic Economy, 
would not the commercial jealousy which prevails among 
private firms arise between countries and provinces? As 
the happiness of each country, or each province, would 
depend on the profits it could realise, would not each try to 
get the better of its neighbours and competitors ? Would 
not such questions as right of way, purity of rivers, supply 
of coals, taxes and duties on goods, terms of exchanges, etc., 
form dangerous apples of discord capable of leading to 
actual war ? 

War between nations is nowadays prevented to no small 
extent by the fact that the inhabitants of inimical nations 
all have an interest in peace, and that war is caused ex- 
clusively by government intrigues, dynastic interests, and 
mistaken notions of Political Economy. But when two 
antagonistic countries are governed on a system of Domestic 
Economy, the interest of all the inhabitants would demand 
that each government should try to wring as many advan- 
tages and as much wealth as possible from the other. The 
governments being commercial concerns, both working and 
fighting for profit, they would stand in the same relation 



THE HAVEN OF SOCIALISM 121 

to each other as two rival commercial establishments, uncon- 
trolled and unprotected by any superior impartial Power, but 
relying entirely on their own policy and their own fighting 
capacity. In case of universal Socialism, the old national 
animosity would, therefore, be enormously intensified by the 
self-interest of every individual citizen in each country. 

A country, where the peopled happiness depends on the 
profit of the government, would be strongly tempted to 
treat its dependencies very differently from the way in which 
we treat our colonies now. It would be to the interest of 
all the citizens of the country to completely enslave the 
colonies, and to exploit them on the commercial principle, 
regardless of the fate of the colonists. Such a policy would 
of course not be in keeping with the aspirations of our 
present Socialists. But will these take the responsibility for 
the action of their successors in view of the palpable process 
of degeneration which is inseparable from a government 
fighting for profit ? 

To form large territories — whole States or smaller terri- 
tories, provinces, towns, and parishes — into politico-com- 
mercial establishments, each subjected to a government with 
patriarchal powers and interests, would be to prepare a 
general and continuous warfare : for it would be nothing 
short of returning to the feudal institutions of the middle 
ages and the reign of violence which characterised them. 

When we closely examine the aims of the Socialists and 
the means they propose to use in order to attain them, we 
find that their means invariably tend to exactly opposite 
results to their aims. They wish to see the land in the hands 
of the people, but they propose to take it from the people 
and hand it over to government officials ; they wish to see 
the people better off, and they deprive them of everything 
in favour of the government ; they wish to add economic 



122 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

liberty to the now existing liberties, and they make every 
inhabitant absolutely dependent on a bureaucratic caste for 
everything they require in life; they wish to elevate and 
honour labour, and degrade it by making it compulsory ; they 
yearn for a perfect government, and they give to it powers 
and attributes which in all times have tended to demoralise 
human beings in authority ; they hope to render the people 
perfect, and subject them to a system of slavery more com- 
plete than any that has yet corrupted nations and races ; 
they desire universal peace, and they propose to replace 
universal co-operation by universal strife. 

Let the British nation, and especially the working-classes, 
be warned in time. It may be impossible to establish a 
complete Socialistic system in the United Kingdom, as our 
working-classes value their liberty too highly, and easily see 
through the fallacious reasoning of the votaries of Socialism. 
But it is not impossible that attempts will be made, and it 
is certain that such attempts will exercise a most baneful 
influence on industry and trade, and that the consequences 
will fall most heavily on the workers. There are amongst 
our politicians, our agitators, our writers, and our clergy 
generous-minded and sincere people who recklessly advocate 
a social upheaval of which they are unable to grasp the 
true nature. But there are also selfish men imbued with the 
belief that they are born to enjoy all the privileges and 
luxuries of life while the great majority of their fellow-beings 
are predestined to toil and suffer. These selfish men, too, 
preach Socialism, but not because they have any sympathy 
with the oppressed and the be-sweated, but because they 
well know that once the working-man has yielded up his 
liberty and newly-acquired political power to the State, it 
will be easy to hold him in subjection by such State Socialism 
as has been so effectively applied in Germany, and through 



THE HAVEN OF SOCIALISM 123 

which the wealthy and influential classes can so easily snatch 
the power. Socialism is an impossible dream in some, a base 
conspiracy against the working-classes in others ; but all its 
advocates urge the country on in a direction opposite to that 
in which true happiness and true greatness are to be found. 

Before, therefore, the British people are coaxed into 
yielding up their newly-gained liberty they should try to 
use it. The Britisher already possesses political freedom, 
religious freedom, and social freedom ; but he has not 
economic freedom. Let him, hand in hand with his fellow- 
citizens all over the globe, make a dash for that indispensable 
condition for earthly happiness, and if, when in possession of 
it, he finds that liberty is incompatible with prosperity, it 
will be time enough to contemplate artificial systems based 
on compulsion. 



IMPERIAL FREE TRADE 

The advantages derived from the Zollverein in Germany, 
and the facilities afforded to American industries through 
the vast expansion of their home market, have frequently 
caused a closer commercial co-operation among the different 
parts of our Empire to be contemplated. That the subject 
has not secured more attention is partly due to all-absorbing 
party topics in Parliament, and partly to the shelving of 
economic questions both here and in the Colonies in favour 
of State Socialism. It may be added that the full importance 
of a closer commercial co-operation has not had a chance of 
being appreciated here, or in the Colonies, since Political 
Economy has been neglected, and since it has gained for 
economic science the reputation of being abstruse. In 
connection with hazy dreams of future Imperialism, 
suggestions of a British Zollverein have been made. But 
absolute Free Trade throughout the Empire has never 
figured on any politician's programme. The cause of this 
is not altogether due to the supposed difficulties in the way : 
for these have never been examined. If this practical 
realisation of Imperialism, this thoroughgoing remedy 
against trade depression, has been totally ignored, it is 
chiefly due to the reluctance of the present political parties 
to suggest any measure which, however useful, is not 
clamoured for by the agitators. 



IMPERIAL FREE TRADE 125 

There can be no doubt that so far the masses have not 
demanded Free Trade in the Colonies. For this there are 
many reasons. The British public are accustomed to hear 
from public speakers, and to read in the press, doubts as to 
the benefits of Free Trade. The great Free Trade reform 
of 1845 was not passed because the people had grasped the 
arguments in favour of unhampered trade, but because the 
repeal of the Corn Laws meant a cheap loaf to a starving 
people. The arguments of fifty years ago, incomplete and 
one-sided as they were, have never been heard by many of 
the present generation. And as to the new arguments in 
favour of Free Trade which recent investigations have 
supplied, very few Britishers indeed are acquainted with 
them. These arguments show that Protection is not only 
an unjust tax on the peopled food, but an obstacle to the 
very industries it is supposed to foster. 

In order, then, to evoke an interest in a question which is 
of the most vital importance to the maintenance of the 
Empire and the prosperity of British trade, it will be neces- 
sary to give a somewhat complete explanation of the folly 
of Protection and the immense advantages of Free Trade. 

The excuse for Protective duties is that they are supposed 
to further native industry. Never was there a greater 
fallacy. The way these duties operate is as follows : foreign 
goods are, when imported into the protected country, charged 
with a tax so as to render them dearer to the consumer, and 
thereby allow the native producer to obtain from the people 
a higher price than his goods are really worth. By this 
high price people are tempted to invest their capital in 
productive undertakings which are called industries. Slight 
reflection will show that the word ' industry ' is a misnomer 
for such undertakings, well calculated to cloud the per- 
ception of the unwary. 



126 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

Industry proper is a process by which the wealth of 
the people is increased. But protected industries, far from 
increasing the wealth of the people, diminish it at an 
alarming rate. The following reasoning will prove this : 
If the protected producer had not the privilege of taxing 
his fellow-countrymen, he would, according to his own 
clamorous avowal, have no profit but a loss on his 
production. The extra price which he extorts from 
the people has, then, the object of, firstly, covering the 
actual loss on his operation, and, secondly, of securing to him 
the means of living and of making a fortune. Consequently 
the protected manufacturers devote a large proportion of the 
country's capital and the labour of a great number of people 
to the sole object of destroying considerably more capital 
than they produce. When, for example, a protected manu- 
facturer imports, say, £50,000 worth of raw material, and 
works it into marketable goods at the expense of another 
£50,000, he has consumed capital to the extent of .£100,000. 
But the goods thus produced are only worth, say, £80,000 in 
the general markets of the world, as they could be had from 
other countries at that price. There is, therefore, a clear 
loss of £20,000 to the country. The manufacturer, knowing 
that foreign goods equal to his own would have to pay a 
duty which would bring them up to the artificial value of, 
say, £120,000, charges the people accordingly. Thus, when 
the operation is concluded, the manufacturer has made a 
profit of £20,000, but the people have lost £40,000. 

Nothing can be more ridiculous than to call such a capital- 
destroying enterprise an industry. This becomes evident if 
we apply the principle of public sacrifice to other branches of 
economic activity, let us say gold-mining. With very slight 
protection it might be started anywhere. All that has to 
be done is to employ two sets of men — one set to dig the 



IMPERIAL FREE TRADE 127 

gold down, and one set to dig it up again ! If the govern- 
ment would only give a bounty on the gold that is dug up 
it would pay to dig it down first. Such sham gold-mining 
would not be more irrational than is the production of other 
goods under protective duties, or bounties. When the 
problem is thus dissociated from its delusive surroundings and 
familiar forms, the most superficial mind would ask what 
would become of a nation completely devoted to such foolish 
occupations. The reply of course is that a nation, like a 
family, employed in unprofitable work, would go to ruin. 
Whether it be called artificial industry, or artificial mining, 
there can be no difference in the actual results : the loss to 
the nation is in exact proportion to the extent given to such 
harmful operations. 

One important question which Protectionists seldom ask 
themselves is this : Who pays for this lavish expenditure ? 
To understand our reply to this question, it must be noted 
that the introduction of a Protective system into a country 
divides the producers into two distinct classes which, with 
few exceptions, have directly opposed aims and interests — 
namely, the natural industries and the protected industries, 
or, as they might be more clearly called, the productive 
industries and the destructive industries. The former are 
such industries as are not protected by duties, or, if they are, 
sell their products to foreign countries, and can consequently 
derive no benefit from protection. The latter sell their 
products only in their own country, where the law permits a 
substantial over-charge, and, as a rule, they never export, 
because the high cost of production, which the Protective 
system involves, excludes them from all foreign and even 
neutral markets. It is evident that the unprotected — that is, 
the productive industries — alone keep the country from utter 
ruin. Whatever the destructive industries destroy, must 



128 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

first have been produced by the productive ones. Thus, the 
more artificial industry is fostered in a country, the worse for 
the people, and the higher the tax laid on the natural 
industries. 

If the actual destruction of capital, which results from the 
destructive industries, were the only loss which fell on the 
shoulders of those employed in the productive ones, the 
system might be bearable. But, unfortunately, the natural 
industries are sacrificed in several other ways. They have to 
contribute the total amount of all the national expenditure. 
The cost of government, administration, army, navy, police, 
church, public works, repayment of public loans, and wars — 
all is paid for by the natural industries. The artificial ones 
do not in reality contribute one iota. They appear to do so ; 
but if we compare the amount of taxes which they pay with 
what they collect from the people, they do not stand in the 
position of tax-contributors, but of tax-collectors, who keep 
for themselves the bulk of what they collect. 

The worst effect which the Protective system exercises on 
the real bread-winners of the country — the workers in the 
natural industries — is however yet to be considered, namely, 
the raising of the cost of production. By the Protective 
system the real producers — the farmers in America, Canada, 
Australia, and other countries, for example — have to pay an 
enhanced price for everything they require for their produc- 
tion and for their living, while the price of sale of their own 
products is not raised, because it is not determined by the 
scale of prices prevailing in their own country, but by the 
world price. This raising of the cost of production, without 
a corresponding rise in the price of sale, is a most inhuman 
form of taxation, because it strikes at the root of the econo- 
mic life of natural production. It is a tax which cannot 
be made good by any extra activity, because it upsets all 



IMPERIAL FREE TRADE 129 

calculations. If in the above-mentioned countries the pro- 
tected manufacturers made a law that half or three-quarters 
of all the profits earned by farmers and other natural pro- 
ducers were to go to them, the manufacturers, they would 
tax the natural producers less cruelly than they do now. 
By not interfering with their cost of production, they would 
at least leave them a margin which could be expanded by 
dint of economy, intelligence, and hard work. As it is, the 
manufacturers keep the farmers and other natural industries 
in constant economic difficulties, and thus kill the goose that 
should lay the golden eggs. 

The Protective duties do not only raise the cost of produc- 
tion for the natural industries, but they also lower their price 
of sale considerably ; and this in several ways. We demon- 
strate in the following chapter the now indisputable fact 
that the circulating coin of one country cannot be transferred 
to and used as coin in another, and a natural conclusion from 
this fact is that no country can profitably export more than 
it imports. The actuality of this natural balance is now so 
generally recognised that we need not here give circumstantial 
proofs. We shall only mention that loan operations, and the 
transmissions of bonds and securities, which are often alluded 
to by the believers in the old-fashioned trade-balance theories 
in no way disprove the impossibility of profitably increasing 
the export without increasing the import : for, whenever 
bonds are remitted in payment of goods, we find the balance 
re-established later on, the bonds representing postponed 
imports and exports of goods. When the dividends on the 
bonds, or the bonds themselves, are paid, they are paid in 
goods. Now when a country diminishes its import trade by 
import duties, the export trade falls off in proportion. This 
comes about in the following way. 

When, for instance, America places heavy import duties 

i 



130 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

on European goods, a very large proportion of those manu- 
factured goods, which are consumed in the United States, 
are manufactured within the country, and the import is 
reduced in proportion. This renders the business of the 
European manufacturers slack. There is among them more 
competition and less production. The manufacturers, all 
the people they employ, all those engaged in export and in 
shipping, have their profits and their wages reduced. They 
are unable to consume as much American produce as they 
ought to do, and the products of the American natural 
industries thus become a drug in the market, and fall in 
price. It is difficult to over-estimate the loss which the 
American and Colonial farmers suffer under this head. The 
fact that all foreign goods are dear in these protective 
countries compels the inhabitants to reduce their consump- 
tion, and, consequently, the products of the natural indus- 
tries have to be sold at reduced prices, even within the 
country itself. 

The effects of this systematic robbery of the farmers and 
other natural producers manifest themselves in many ways. 
With enormously raised cost of production, and lowered 
price of sale, they have the greatest difficulty in making both 
ends meet. However much they reduce their number of 
hands, however much they lower wages, the goods they pro- 
duce have a tendency to cost more than they can obtain for 
them. The extraordinary crop on the other side of the 
Atlantic, and the failures of the crops in Europe, have 
momentarily relieved the financial pressure under which 
American and Canadian farmers have long suffered. But 
during years of normal crops the North American farmers, 
whose natural surroundings warrant a high state of prosperity, 
have a hard struggle to even maintain their position. They 
are in a chronic state of want of capital, their indebtedness 









IMPERIAL FREE TRADE 131 

tends to increase, and the natural fertility of their soil 
becomes more and more exhausted without increasing their 
capital. 

The protected industries, for whose benefit the natural 
ones have been ruthlessly sacrificed, are supposed to derive 
great advantages from the system — at least the protected 
manufacturers believe so. They see the enhanced prices they 
can charge, but, having no knowledge of Political Economy, 
they are blind to the many drawbacks which the system 
involves. They cannot export their products, and, being 
confined to the home market, the competition between the 
native manufacturers easily becomes intense. The reduced 
power of consumption of the whole nation limits their pro- 
duction and hampers their selling. The slow accumulation 
of capital and the financial unsoundness amongst their 
customers expose them to heavy losses through failures. 
All their expenses and their cost of living are increased, and 
they are obliged to pay wages which, though insufficient 
for their workers in a dear country, are often out of propor- 
tion to the price they obtain for their products. 

Protectionists argue that Protective duties will foster 
industry, or what they call industry. But, as a matter of 
fact, such duties are well calculated to impede and smother 
industrial enterprise. It is always forgotten that the pro- 
ducts of one industry are often the raw material of others. 
The duty which is supposed to benefit one industry may 
therefore damage ten. If, for example, duty is put on 
cotton yarns, in order to protect the spinner, the weaver 
must suffer, because he has to pay an enhanced price for his 
yarns. The protectionist remedy for this is to place a still 
higher duty on cloth, which again damages the printer and 
the dyer. When the printer and the dyer are protected in 
their turn, the manifold trades which use cloth as a raw 



132 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

material would be unable to exist if they were not allowed 
to overcharge the consumers. Thus by this absurd system 
the protection accorded to one branch of production confines 
ten other branches to the home market, shutting them out 
from the trade of the world. It often happens that 
important natural industries are severely hit by this system 
of protecting one trade at the expense of others. Thus, for 
instance, the duty on tin plate in the United States, imposed 
under the pretence of protecting a destructive industry, 
which, under a free system, might well be a productive one, 
is an unjust tax on the various canning trades — industries of 
considerable importance to the United States. 

It is sometimes said that new countries require protective 
duties in order to allow them to take root and gain strength 
before they are exposed to the cold blast of competition. 
If it be taken for granted that industries are reared in the 
same way as plants, there is plausibility in such talk ; but, 
as it happens, there is no similarity whatsoever between 
plants and industries. Few if any modern industries grow 
up independently from one seed. They generally co-operate 
and lean on each other. The fact that certain industries 
are in existence makes it generally easier for others to spring 
up. Thus it is easier to start coach-building, for example, 
in a country where producers of all the different goods which 
are required to make a carriage already exist, than in a 
country where no such co-operation can be had. And this 
fact explains why free-trading Great Britain has attained to 
such a high pitch of industrial activity. The British manu- 
facturer can select his raw material, accessories, and finished 
parts from the whole world, and can present to his customers 
a complete assortment of patterns, styles, and qualities. In 
a new country new industries have no old ones to lean on, 
and, if they are debarred from co-operating with foreign 



IMPERIAL FREE TRADE 133 

ones, they must either start in the shape of a whole series of 
industries, or become extremely one-sided and primitive. 
Free Trade is therefore an essential condition for the growth 
of industries in a new country. 

Two excuses are frequently put forth for the maintenance 
of Protection in the Colonies : namely, that new countries 
have not sufficient capital to compete upon an equal footing 
with the old countries, and that they have not sufficient 
remunerative employment for their workers. We prove, in 
the following chapter, the truth of the economic axiom, 
which says that every country has enough capital, and that 
what in many countries appears as scarcity of capital, is a 
vitiated mechanism for the supply of it. But we must here 
protest against the method of reasoning adopted by the 
Protectionists, when they recommend a system which repre- 
sents sheer destruction of capital in countries supposed by 
them to be short of capital. In the United States, as well 
as in our protected Colonies, capital accumulates slowly, 
because so large a proportion of the population is busily 
engaged in destroying it. This destruction of capital has 
grave consequences. The natural wealth of the British Isles 
is only a fraction of that of the United States, or of that of 
many of our Colonies. But, in spite of this, a great many 
American and Colonial railways and industrial undertakings 
have to be financed entirely with capital from these small 
free-trading islands. Mines, forests, and large tracts of 
fertile soil in America and the Colonies are constantly pass- 
ing into the hands of British capitalists, because the destruc- 
tion of native capital, combined with defective banking, 
compels the sale of such property at ruinously low prices. 

As to securing high wages for the workers, the Protective 
system produces exactly the opposite result. The natural 
industries, as we have seen, are plundered and hampered to 



134 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

such an extent that they can employ only a portion of the 
hands they would employ under a free system. The destruc- 
tive industries, limited to the home market, cannot extend 
their operations beyond its demand. Under such circum- 
stances, the demand for labourers is far from what it should 
be, and the wages, though in some places nominally high, are 
not at all what the enormous resources and scope for work in 
our Colonies warrant. In fact, the difficulties under which 
the protected industries work would entirely out-balance the 
advantages to the manufacturers, if the system did not allow 
them to deprive the labourers of a considerable portion of 
the wages which they would receive under a free system. 

Guided by the above glance at some of the worst conse- 
quences of protection, it will be easy to form an estimate of 
the losses which the economic mistakes of our Colonial 
fellow-subjects inflict on themselves, as well as on British 
and Irish working-men. 

The rate of wages in our manufacturing districts and in 
our shipping ports depends largely on the demand for goods 
for export. Again, the rate of wages of our agricultural 
labourers depends on the degree of prosperity which exists 
in our manufacturing districts and shipping towns where the 
farm products are consumed. The export of British farm 
products is out of the question, and if British farming cannot 
thrive by supplying the consumers in the country, it must 
suffer or be abandoned. Considering however the enormous 
import of foreign farm produce, no one can doubt that 
under a rational economic system British consumers would 
be able to keep home farming both busy and prosperous. 

Finding that the prosperity of our workers both in town 
and country depends on the condition of our export trade, 
the impulse which this trade would receive through Imperial 
Free Trade is a matter of great importance to us. Let us, 



IMPERIAL FREE TRADE 135 

therefore, try to form an idea of the expansion our Export 
Trade would receive, and of the change in circumstances 
which would accompany such an expansion, in the case of 
Free Trade with our Colonies. 

In the first place all British goods, as well as the goods 
of other countries, would be cheaper in the Colonies, and 
the people could buy more for the same amount of coin. 
Cost of living would be reduced, and the people would soon 
attain to a higher degree of prosperity, and consequently 
require more British goods. The natural industries in the 
Colonies would derive several advantages from the reform : 
their cost of production would be reduced ; the increased 
export from Great Britain would cause a corresponding in- 
creased import of products from the Colonies — the working 
people at home experiencing a better demand for their work, 
would receive higher wages and consume more colonial pro- 
ducts. These two great advantages for the natural industries 
in the Colonies would of course result in a greater demand 
for hands, and wages would be forced up. 

This again would increase the consumption of British 
goods. The rising wages in the Colonies would attract 
immigrants from Great Britain, and this again would affect 
this country in two ways : it would stimulate wages at 
home and would still more increase the demand for British 
goods in the Colonies. The value of land and all other 
property in the Colonies would go up considerably. This 
rise would produce great prosperity, would probably make 
thousands of fortunes. The rapid growth of capital would 
produce much activity and enterprise, involving a greater 
demand for labourers in the Colonies as well as at home, and 
consequently higher wages. The increased export from 
other countries to our Colonies would to no small extent 
increase the consuming power of all the civilised world, and 



136 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

most countries would buy more goods from Great Britain 
and from the Colonies. As a consequence wages would rise 
to some extent throughout the world. The increased ship- 
ping between the British Colonies and the rest of the world, 
especially Great Britain, would raise freight and bring about 
a considerable increase in our merchant navy. More sailors, 
stokers, etc., would be required, and their wages would go 
up. Harbours, railways, tramways, canals, irrigation works, 
water, gas and electric works, schools, theatres, public halls, 
and other institutions would fast increase in the Colonies, 
much to the benefit of the working-classes of the trades co- 
operating in their creation. 

Protectionist manufacturers in our Colonies are prone to 
represent free-traders as bent on destroying all those branches 
of industry which rely on protection. They often look upon 
Free Trade as incompatible with the production of manufac- 
tured goods. They often make converts by pointing to the 
difficulties which surround them, while ignoring that all these 
difficulties spring from the protective system itself. A refer- 
ence to Great Britain is of no avail ; for the protectionist faith 
is not based on fact and experience, but on illogical reason- 
ing. Unprejudiced people would conclude from what we 
have already said, that freedom is the only effective protec- 
tion which can be given to industry, but it may be useful to 
explain to those who imagine that we wish to benefit the 
British working classes by preventing the production of 
manufactured goods in the Colonies, that Free Trade will 
not abolish the destructive industries but simply transform 
them into productive ones. The unfortunate idea that the 
development of one country^ industries is detrimental to 
those of the others has clouded the minds of legislators 
in most countries : it nevertheless remains an obvious and 
absurd fallacy. The great loss which Great Britain experi- 



IMPERIAL FREE TRADE 137 

ences from the protective policy of the Colonies does not 
arise from the fact that goods are manufactured in the 
Colonies which might be manufactured at home, but from 
the poverty, reduced production, diminished power of con- 
sumption, and stagnation in development — all resulting from 
protection and other economic mistakes. 

When Imperial Free Trade is adopted, it is not likely that 
one single factory in our Colonies will be closed. The great 
improvement in the condition of the working classes which, 
as we have shown, Free Trade is bound to produce, would 
soon manifest itself in the Colonies, in the shape of reduced 
cost of living. In Great Britain it would take the form of 
generally and actually raised wages. Thus, the British pro- 
ducers would have to face and meet fresh demands from their 
work-people, and be compelled to add the extra wages to 
the price of their goods. The industries of Great Britain 
are already highly developed, and it would not be easy to 
counter-balance the higher wages by improved methods and 
increased turn-over. Manufactured goods would therefore 
be dearer in Great Britain. 

The colonial industries would have no such demand for 
higher wages to meet for some time, in fact not until the 
degree of improvement in the condition of the workers had 
exceeded the degree of reduction in their cost of living. 
The tendency of prices of manufactured goods in Great 
Britain and other countries being to go up, the price reduc- 
tion which the colonial manufacturers would have to make, 
in order to meet the free foreign competition, would not 
have to be equal to the full amount of the abolished 
duty, but only to a part of it. The rise in the rates of 
freight, railway carriage, commissions, shipping expenses, 
and middleman's profits, would of course constitute an 
additional advantage for the colonial manufacturers. So 



138 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

would the probable but not marked rise in insurance. 
Some reduction in their prices the colonial manufacturers 
would have to make, but for this they would have ample 
compensation. All those trades which consume manufac- 
tured goods as raw material would be greatly benefited. We 
know that when Prince Bismarck imposed the high duties 
in Germany, there was a considerable outcry amongst the 
makers of hosiery, small- wares, umbrellas, and many other 
kinds of goods, because the high duties on yarns, cloth, 
umbrella-frames, etc., destroyed a large portion of their 
export trade. 

When Free Trade prevails in the Colonies, it will be 
found that a great many industries have been kept in a 
depressed state, and that some of the best trades in the 
country have all the time been prevented by protection. 
All the colonial manufacturers will derive enormous advan- 
tage from the improved condition of their market. They 
would be able to sell easily with few expenses to wealthy 
and cash-paying customers. Failures would be less frequent, 
and the turn-over more rapid. They would all be able to 
manufacture on a larger scale, and thereby considerably 
increase their profit. With a large turn-over, all the 
general expenses, such as clerks, travellers, foremen, patterns, 
stamps, rollers, etc., would count for less in the cost of pro- 
duction, and in many trades this would be an enormous 
advantage. If a manufacturer under the protective system 
charges 50°/ o profit, and produces goods to the amount of 
i?50,000, and under the free system charges only 25 / o 
profit, and turns over i?l 50,000, the total of his profit 
would be 50°/ o higher under the free system, and this with- 
out counting any of the other great advantages which a 
large, rapid, and safe turn-over involves. If we ask the 
sewing-silk manufacturers of Leek and Macclesfield, who 



IMPERIAL FREE TRADE 139 

were expected to be sacrificed in the Free Trade reform, 
whether they would go back to the old system of a small 
turn-over and large percentage of profit, we should find every 
one of them vastly prefer their present smaller percentage 
and large turn-over. 

The more the Colonies develop, the more will the Colonial 
producers be able to avoid middlemen and sell more directly. 
Each manufacturer would have sufficient customers at his 
door, and would not require to send his traveller over 
large territories in order to secure small orders from unsafe 
customers. Besides, it would be very strange if a manufac- 
turer who suddenly experienced a strong demand for his 
specialities, could not add to his profits by importing part of 
the goods he sells. He would in fact be in a better position 
to take advantage of Free Trade than any one else, as he 
would have the connection ready formed. The result would 
probably be, that the manufacturers would continue to 
produce certain specialities as before — only in larger quanti- 
ties — and at the same time be able to carry on a large trade 
in others. 

The idea that Free Trade is useful to the industries of 
some countries and harmful to those of others is too absurd 
to require refutation. The laws of nature and of arithmetic 
do not vary according to countries. When it can be proved 
that twice two does not make four in our colonies, as well 
as at home, it may be believed that Free Trade, which is the 
life and soul of British industry, would be the death of the 
industries of our colonies. 

The defenders of Protective Duties not only start from a 
host of utterly fallacious postulates, but draw conclusions con- 
trary to all logic. They start, as a rule, with the following 
suppositions : — that it is an advantage to attract more coin 
into the country than is natural to it ; that the circulating 



140 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

mass of coin can be increased by encouraging exports and 
discouraging imports ; that the trade balance thus brought 
about would be settled in coin ; that a large export and a 
small import could be maintained without resulting in 
national poverty, etc. 

It suffices to study the variations of the foreign rates of 
exchange to understand that the slightest tendency towards 
a disturbance of the natural coin level of the world would, 
within a few hours, affect the foreign rates of exchange in 
such a way as to at once counteract this tendency ; that the 
same rates of exchange would prevent the settlement of any 
temporary trade balance in coin, and cause it to be settled 
by goods ; that, in view of the impossibility of importing 
coin except at a loss, a large export and a small import could 
only be possible through an enormous loss on our foreign 
trade, through deliberate gifts to other nations, or through 
heavy indebtedness to other countries. A glance at the 
imports and exports of the different countries of the world 
will show how completely this truth is confirmed by actuali- 
ties. It will be found that all the poor countries — all those 
which labour under heavy indebtedness to foreigners — have a 
smaller import in proportion to their export than the richer 
countries. 

With postulates as above instanced, the most absurd con- 
clusions may be arrived at, and would always result, if our 
Protectionists did not indulge in reasoning very much on a 
par with their postulates. Thus, we frequently meet with 
the demand for Protective Duties on some special kind of 
goods in order that they may be manufactured at home 
instead of being imported, on the plea that the manufacture 
of the article at home would give extra profit to employers 
and extra wages to the employed, and that, at the same time, 
the duty would compel foreigners who send goods to this 



IMPERIAL FREE TRADE 141 

country to contribute to our national expenses. That is to 
say, the home producer is to receive an extra profit because 
the goods are not imported, and the government is to receive 
a duty because the goods are imported. There is, of course, 
a possibility that half of the taxed goods would be manufac- 
tured at home and half imported; but this would only be the 
case if the duty were very low, and consequently of very small 
advantage to the protected manufacturer. 

In any case, the duty would have to be borne not by the 
foreigner who sends his goods to us, but by the people at 
home who buy and consume the protected goods. 

The discussions regarding the duty on cotton goods im- 
ported into India have disclosed some strange methods of 
reasoning. The plea for these was that the Indian Treasury 
required extra revenue. It soon became evident that a tax 
on cotton goods would not reach the Treasury, but pass into 
the pockets of Indian manufacturers. To prevent this an 
excise was laid on the coarser qualities, with the view to 
securing to the Indian Government the excise on such goods 
as were most likely to be manufactured in India, as well as 
the duty on such goods as were more likely to be imported. 
The result is, of course, that the Indian manufacturers must 
reduce the wages to make up for the excise duty, and thus 
harm the whole country. Also that the Indian import, and 
consequently the export, are hampered and reduced. Were 
it possible to tabulate the losses and extra misery which this 
double attack on Indian prosperity involves, we should pro- 
bably find that the sum-total of them stands in proportion 
to the extra net revenue raised as something like one 
thousand to one. 

While the remnant of the old Cobden school alone appears 
satisfied with the present system of taxing goods in India, 
there are two opposing parties that, are not. One of them 



142 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

desires to abolish the excise, and thus render the duties on 
cotton purely protective. The plea for this line of action is 
the old Protectionist one that India would profit by Pro- 
tective Duties — an eventuality which we have proved to be 
impossible. Strange to say, this camp includes many of the 
Liberal Party, hitherto the upholders of Free Trade. 

The other camp would abolish both the Import Duty and 
the cotton excise. Nothing could be more rational than 
their aim, but it is a pity that such feeble arguments should 
be resorted to when such powerful ones are available. It is 
too generally contended that the Cotton Duties in India 
should be abolished because, despite the inadequate excise, 
they tend to foster a vast cotton industry in India to the 
detriment of Lancashire. Such reasoning is based on the 
old fallacious supposition that the development of a free 
and natural industry in one country is harmful to another, 
and, besides, cannot fail to produce the very worst impression 
in India. 

Both these camps are wrong in their estimate of the 
nature of Free Trade and Protection. Complete Free Trade 
and free industry in India would benefit all healthy in- 
dustries in the same manner as Free Trade has benefited 
British industries. If the production of cotton goods should 
show itself an advantage to the Indian people, Free Trade 
alone can cause it to blossom. India would probably make a 
speciality of the heavier goods, supplying not only a portion 
of the population in India, but also many other peoples in 
the East, because the Indian cotton manufacturer would have 
the raw material near at hand, the cost of production as low 
as Free Trade can render it, and cheaper freight than British 
manufacturers could secure. Free Trade would thus accom- 
plish exactly what the Indian Protectionists wrongly suppose 
Protection would accomplish. 



IMPERIAL FREE TRADE 143 

Though Free Trade might not in any way prevent the 
development of the cotton industry in India, as the Lanca- 
shire manufacturers seem to believe, they would, however, 
reap no disadvantage from it, but profit largely, provided 
that the Free Trade principle were systematically adhered to 
throughout India. If the Indian cotton industry is the 
result of a rational progression and not of the artificial im- 
poverishment of the working people, the consumption of 
cotton goods in India would keep pace with, nay outstrip, 
the Indian production. If there were prosperity in the 
Dependency, all the Indian industries would experience a 
revival, the demand for working people would grow apace, 
and wages in India would rise. The rise in wages would again 
increase the consuming power of the people, and consequently 
the demand for British goods of all kinds. The effect of 
prosperity in India would thus react on the United Kingdom 
not only directly, but indirectly through all the countries of 
the world, and cause a demand and an extra rise in the price 
of all British goods. 

But Lancashire manufacturers will say : India is not pros- 
perous, and it is just on the basis of the extreme poverty of 
the people and the extremely low wages that the Indian 
cotton industry will be built up, and Lancashire will there- 
fore encounter an intense competition in the East without 
receiving the enormous benefit which prosperity among 
400,000,000 people would involve. 

This is perfectly true. But, under such circumstances, 
what is the course to be adopted? There is only one 
rational course, namely, to render the enormous population 
in our Eastern Possessions highly prosperous. In no part of 
the Empire has the British Government a better chance of 
bringing about that flourishing state of which history has 
shown Eastern Empires capable. In India there are no 



144 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

electors, no political party, and hardly any vernacular press 
worth considering. The British Government can in these 
vast regions act the part of a kind Providence without fear 
of systematic opposition or political reactions. Measures 
which evidently aim at the prosperity of the native popula- 
tions will not fail to strengthen our hold on the country, 
especially if such measures tend towards Individualism : that 
is to say, involving no new restrictions and prohibitions, but 
only new liberties. 

In most people's minds there will be a doubt as to the 
possibility for any government to render the Indian people 
prosperous, all the more so as all the attempts of modern 
governments have failed to banish poverty from India. But 
if it be true in the abstract that a government cannot render 
a country prosperous, it is also true that a government can 
render a country poor. To this truth the whole civilised world 
bears witness. Everywhere we see growing and developing 
those elements which go to make up the prosperity of nations : 
vast new resources of raw material are being discovered, new 
labour-saving machines are constantly being invented, the 
results of scientific research are being applied to production, 
communications are being improved, popular education 
advanced, and every class is becoming more industrious, 
more frugal, and more thrifty. At the same time, we find 
almost every government — actuated by the best intentions, 
but labouring under economic prejudices — raising insur- 
mountable impediments to popular prosperity. 

Englishmen who travel on the Continent, even without 
having paid any special attention to Economy, seldom fail 
to notice to what a large extent fiscal, administrative, and 
police regulations hamper trade and industry, and how 
monopolies, privileges and prohibitions weigh down the 
working-classes. But, thanks to the absence in the United 



IMPERIAL FREE TRADE 145 

Kingdom of the worst features of these prosperity-crushing 
systems, we are apt to plume ourselves on the liberality 
of our own institutions, and on the fact that the British 
Government does not, like the Continental ones, artificially 
produce poverty among the people. 

As to India, it is generally supposed that the British 
Government has done its best to promote prosperity, and 
that what appears to be a chronic state of poverty is insepar- 
able from the peculiarities of the races we there govern. 
The blame is laid on the caste system, on the religious 
prejudices of the people, on their want of energy, on over- 
population and on Providence. But, strange to say, the 
ruin- working usury system is never blamed; and yet no 
Englishman who has visited India with open eyes can 
have failed to see that the enormous rate of interest, the 
life-long indebtedness and the hopeless drudgery involved in 
the usury system are causes for poverty of the greatest 
magnitude. The idea, however, is that the usury system is 
an indispensable condition in Indian economy, and that 
government is powerless to cope with it. 

In this case, as in many others, confusion prevails between 
cause and effect. The usury system in India, far from being 
the original evil, as it is generally regarded, is the inevit- 
able result of a government measure. Usury is certainly 
indispensable in any country where the economic conditions 
are being reformed on the basis of the modern commercial 
system, and where the only mechanism through which this 
system can work is wanting, or else vitiated and curtailed by 
government interference. It should by this time be an 
indisputable economic fact that the usury system flourishes 
in a country in exact proportion to the inadequacy of its 
banking and credit system. In the next chapter the truth 
of this axiom will be amply proved. It is moreover com- 
ic 



146 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

pletely confirmed by actualities all the world over. It will 
always be found that in countries where banking is most 
hampered and vitiated, there the usurer flourishes most. 

In India, therefore, the government is not called upon to 
create an artificial prosperity, but simply to remove the 
obstacles it has placed in the way of that high degree of 
prosperity which is natural to our Indian Possessions. After 
realising what the extension of the Free Trade principle to 
the trade in capital and credit really means, no one acquainted 
with India will believe that the characteristics of its inhabi- 
tants would stand in the way of a development for which the 
Scottish people were ripe nearly two centuries ago. The 
fact is that the conscientiousness with which the Indian 
ryot pays his debts and even the debts of his father and 
grandfather renders him an almost ideal candidate for a 
cash credit account. 

The difficulty of rendering India sufficiently prosperous to 
dispense with the Cotton Duties and to maintain it as an 
important customer of, but an unimportant competitor with, 
British manufacturers, does therefore not lie in the natural 
conditions of the vast Dependency but in the prejudices of 
Englishmen at home. India would prosper exceedingly, and 
Lancashire with it, as soon as our manufacturers demand 
from Parliament complete Free Trade for India. 

Those who remember or who have studied the wondrous 
effects of the Free Trade Reform in Great Britain will not 
accuse us of exaggerating the likely effects of Imperial Free 
Trade. The two measures can hardly be compared as to 
their importance. The reform of 1845 was limited to our 
small islands, and may be said to have been of a one-sided 
nature, as it did not open up any closed or protected market. 
The bulk of the benefits arose simply from cheapened cost 
of production and the favourable reaction which the increased 



IMPERIAL FREE TRADE 147 

imports into Great Britain produced abroad. The Imperial 
Free Trade Reform would not produce one-sided effects only, 
but direct and indirect effects, which would be universal, 
ever-growing, and reciprocal. It would throw open vast 
countries, containing immense natural resources, and enough 
rich virgin soil to form millions of splendid estates. 

Besides, when the colonials have their eyes opened to the 
mischievous consequences of one kind of monopoly it may be 
confidently expected that they will not tolerate others. 
Free Trade in our Colonies, when it comes, is almost sure to 
include Free Trade in Capital, and in that case the great 
obstacle which has prevented us from reaping the best fruits 
from Free Trade at home will in the Colonies disappear 
simultaneously with the protective duties. 

Few who have followed us so far are likely to believe that 
it is impossible, or even difficult, to bring about Free Trade 
in our Colonies. The protective system is simply a form of 
tyranny exercised by a group of short-sighted capitalists over 
the great mass of the people. They are enabled to over-ride 
and ruin the far more numerous unprotected employers and 
the whole of the working-classes by certain circumstances, of 
which they take full advantage. They are educated men, 
they dispose of much wealth, they exercise great social 
influence, they pull the political wires, they live together in 
the towns, they can easily co-operate and conspire, they own 
part of the press and employ a great number of people. 

Their victims have none of these advantages. They live 
scattered over vast territories, hold little communication 
with each other, see few books and newspapers, have no 
influence, have only small means, and stand in awe of the 
capitalists. It is hard to say whether any of them ever put 
their trust in the Home Government, but if they do they 
have been sadly disappointed, for neither of our political 



148 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

parties dreams about freeing them from the detestable 
bondage in which they are held. It is time that the working- 
classes at home came to their rescue, for there is, as we have 
seen, a close solidarity between all the workers of the Empire. 
By demanding Imperial Free Trade the British voters would 
not ask Parliament to coerce the Colonies, but to save them 
from their worst enemies. Britons have not hesitated to 
free the negro slave. Why should they hesitate to free our 
own people, the white slaves suffering in the exasperating 
bondage under protectionist capitalists ? 

The number of men who do understand the fallaciousness 
of protection is daily increasing in the colonies, and if our 
Government drew attention to the complete and powerful 
arguments which now can be raised against this pernicious 
system, the majority of the people would soon be con- 
vinced and hail with joy the proclamation of Imperial Free 
Trade. 

We should not interfere with the freedom of the Colonies 
by abolishing the protective system. By forbidding the 
destruction of freedom, freedom is preserved. No tie would 
better keep the Empire together than the knowledge that 
wherever the Union Jack flies there no man is permitted to 
enslave his fellow man. 

Some people hold up our loss of the United States as a 
warning against interfering with the fiscal laws of the 
Colonies, because such people are under the impression that 
an Imperial Free Trade policy would lose us our possessions. 
But they labour under a great mistake. What we did to 
the United States is similar to what we are doing with our 
colonies now. The home government wanted, before the 
American revolt, to impose an unjust taxation on the 
American colonies, and at this moment our Parliament 
allows the colonial manufacturers to impose an unjust 



IMPERIAL FREE TRADE 149 

taxation on the colonies. Here we have a similar cause, and 
the effect is bound to be similar. 

Already discontent is rife in Canada, and a party is fast 
forming which aspires to incorporation with the United 
States. How can we wonder at it ? Here is a country with 
enormous natural resources, a people anxious to advance 
and prosper, but a band of selfish capitalists is allowed to 
keep the country back, waste its resources, destroy its capital, 
oppress the natural industries, and impoverish the working 
classes. The people, not understanding the cause of their 
grievances, naturally seek a way out of their troubles, and 
an outlet for their expensive products. They find that in 
the United States cost of production is higher even than 
with them, and, forgetting that by a union their cost of 
production would rise to the high level of that in the 
United States, they hope to benefit themselves by securing 
Free Trade at least with the American continent. A year 
of complete Free Trade, including free trade in capital, 
would for ever eradicate the separatist aspirations in Canada. 

How many colonial protectionists would ever mention the 
word coercion if we addressed them in the following way ? — 

' You hold the opinion that it is good for yourself and 
your country to encourage destructive industries. This 
opinion is wrong, but we will ignore that fact for the 
moment. You also wish to give encouragement to the 
destructive industries in the form of an enhanced price 
of sale. Here again you are wrong, because by doing 
away with competition you would encourage bad work 
instead of good. But also this second fact we will ignore. 
You propose to charge the extra price you accord to the 
destructive industries on the natural and productive industries. 
Here you are wrong again, because the natural industries, 
being the bread-winners of the nation, should not be 



150 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

oppressed but encouraged. But this fact also we will 
ignore. You propose further to levy this extra price on the 
natural industries by surrounding your vast country with a 
custom-house border to examine all goods and all travellers 
who come to your country and tax all foreign goods similar 
to those produced by the protected home manufacturer. 
Against this last fallacy we must protest in the name of 
common sense. By employing such means to accomplish 
your object you entirely defeat it, and all your sacrifices are 
useless. By collecting the tax in this manner you damage 
many industries in order to protect one, you cause the 
protected manufacturer to receive only a small portion of the 
bounties you intend for him and you hamper the whole pro- 
duction of the country. 

' Allow us to call your attention to another way of grant- 
ing the bounties to the pet manufacturers. Leave the trade 
undisturbed and your natural industries prosperous, but pay 
to the favoured manufacturer a premium of so much on all 
the goods he manufactures. This would be the height of 
wisdom compared with the methods you have adopted. A 
far less amount would be required, as the manufacturer 
would receive the full advantage without any of the draw- 
backs which beset him now. A bounty paid on one kind of 
goods would constitute a bounty on a whole series of goods. 
A bounty on yarn would be an advantage, not only to the 
spinner, but to the weaver, printer, etc., just as a duty is a 
disadvantage to them. The bounties would lessen all cost 
of production instead of increasing it as duties do. The 
bounties would not, like duties, hamper import and export, 
and would not lower the selling prices of the natural in- 
dustries. The bounties would not be a pure loss as duties 
are, because the people would enjoy cheaper living for the 
money they pay in bounties. You would in fact have the real 



IMPERIAL FREE TRADE 151 

benefits of Free Trade along with the imaginary ones you 
expect from protection. 

6 We do not think that any sane man can fail to see the 
enormous advantages which this system presents over the 
clumsy system you have inherited from the dark ages. If 
this be granted, we would suggest to you that it would not 
be in keeping with the ideas of a free people to compel those 
to contribute towards the maintenance of the destructive 
industries who look upon them as a nuisance. You should 
not compel any one to be a free trader, but on the other hand 
you should not compel any one to be a protectionist against 
his wish and conviction. You will, therefore, think it fair 
and reasonable that the contributions for the premiums be 
left free, in order that those who believe in free trade may 
act up to their faith as well as the protectionists. In this 
way you would avoid what every free nation should avoid, 
namely, compelling a man to do what he thinks is wrong and 
what cannot be proved right, and you would at the same 
time allow the protectionists to carry out their principles to 
their heart's content. Where is the coercion here ? ' 

Such reasonable speech would certainly meet with the 
approval of all reasonable people in the colonies, and the 
unreasonable we need not heed. If it should come to forcible 
measures, we should not have to fight against the colonial 
people, but with them against a small band of manufacturers. 
If after all the money we have paid for the army and the 
navy we cannot trust them to accomplish this easy task, we 
certainly cannot count upon them in a war against a great 
military power. Rut even if it should come to actual war 
with a colony, we should either conquer or we should lose the 
colony. In the first case the great prosperity which would 
follow our victory would easily cover our outlay and soon 
reconcile the colony to actual liberty and progress ; in the 



152 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

second case we should be better off without a colony 
inhabited by people who are both unreasonable and disloyal. 
But all fear of resistance may be dismissed. Such Oppression 
as the people of the protected colonies suffer now, will, 
when understood, not be patiently borne by any man of our 
race. The colonials themselves will take care that in the 
coming struggle no other arms are used than pens, and that 
no blood, but ink alone, is spilt. 

Let, therefore, every Britisher without hesitation demand 
Free Trade throughout the Empire, and a responding cheer 
is sure to rise from their brethren all over the globe. 



VI 



FREE COMPETITION IN THE SUPPLY OF CAPITAL 
TO LABOUR 

The democratisation of the electorate has, as we have 
already pointed out, produced in England the same effects 
as in France and the United States. It has arrested the 
nation's advance towards individual liberty and towards a 
more equal distribution of wealth. Such a result from the 
extension of the Franchise to the masses is by no means 
either inevitable or natural, but entirely incidental. If any 
set of men is to be held responsible for so undesirable a 
development, it must be the party politicians. Eager to 
sway the electors — whom they credit with far less intelli- 
gence than they really possess — in favour of their own 
party, candidates and agitators are naturally tempted to 
use such arguments as they deem most likely to tell with 
the greatest number in their audiences. They suppose, and 
not without reason, that conclusions drawn from Political 
Economy and Sociology would be little appreciated and 
often not understood. They know that the first impulse 
of all who for the first time concern themselves in legislative 
affairs is to apply to the State the only principle of economy 
that has come under their notice, namely that of Domestic 
Economy. The politician, in quest of popularity, is there- 
fore apt to speak of the State as though it were a huge house- 
hold, and the remedies for social and economic anomalies 



154 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

he suggests are of the same nature as those which he would 
recommend to a large farmer or to the patriarch of a 
tribe. He wishes to gratify the popular longing, already 
described, for a benevolent authority conferring upon all 
the inhabitants the care, kindness, and largesse of a loving 
father. In this manner the masses of a nation are gradually 
taught that the only way in which to secure prosperity for 
themselves is to establish a fatherly government. 

As soon as the idea of a fatherly government is firmly en- 
grafted upon the minds of the people, the field is clear for all 
sorts of government meddling, expedients, regulations, and arbi- 
trary prohibitions. As soon as it is agreed that the country 
is to be governed on the principle of Domestic Economy, it 
appears natural to submit to all sorts of encroachments on 
individual liberty, private property, and freedom of contract. 

When such a system of government is adopted, the laws 
and enactments are dictated by considerations of expediency, 
by the desire of meeting one special popular demand, regard- 
less of the consequences which a State-interfering measure 
may inflict on the community as a whole, and, therefore, 
regardless of the laws of Political Economy. Countries, like 
France and America, that possess everything to render their 
inhabitants, especially the working-classes, highly prosperous, 
have, as we have seen, in obedience to popular prejudices, 
adopted an anti-economic system of legislation whereby their 
commerce is becoming ruined and their working classes are 
driven to desperation. 

In the United Kingdom we have witnessed the same 
phenomenon ; only the return to the old State-meddling 
methods of the past has taken place later and has not been 
characterised by such glaring economic blunders as Protection 
Duties, Shipping and Sugar Bounties, and currency manipu- 
lations. Yet the reaction is, perhaps, more striking with us 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 155 

than with any other country, in consequence of the fact that 
Great Britain and Ireland, not to say the whole Empire, have 
from the middle of the present century derived enormous 
economic advantages by taking important steps towards 
what may be called a complete Free Trade system. The 
partial curtailment of the monopoly of the Bank of England 
which was effected by the Bank Charter Act of 1844, the 
repeal of the Corn Laws and other Protective Duties, and 
the abolition of a mass of minor trade-hampering Acts — 
all these reforms in the direction of freedom gave, as we 
have shown, an unpredecented extension to British industry, 
shipping, and commerce. 

Despite the great benefit derived from this start in the 
direction of liberty, there were enough social and economic 
anomalies in the country to induce the nation to lend an ear 
to the seductive talk about fatherly government, and to 
cause anti-economic measures, seriously destructive to trade 
and commerce, to be hailed as boons to the masses. There 
was enough poverty, suffering, and sweating to give plausi- 
bility to the assertions of the politicians that adherence to 
the principles of Political Economy had not secured to the 
working-classes that prosperity which the Free Trade re- 
formers had promised. In order to gain popularity for 
their anti-economic measures both the political parties were 
eager to convey the impression that somehow Political 
Economy was a failure, and that it had become necessary 
to legislate regardless of its precepts. Some politicians 
and writers, too wise and too prudent to deny the leading 
truths of Political Economy, would have the public believe 
that, while the adherence to its principles rendered the 
country richer, it did so by increasing the fortunes of the 
wealthy but at the expense of the poor. 

The propagating of a revulsion from a sound economic 



156 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

system to a patriarchal or Socialistic one was thus successful 
enough to cause the nation to look away from every economic 
remedy against its evils. During the time when the bulk 
of the nation, led by two great political parties, was bent 
more and more on State interference, it became a difficult 
task to draw public attention to the fact that an immense 
part of the sufferings of the people sprang from one piece 
of paternal and anti-economic legislation, namely, the Act 
which forbids Free Trade in Capital and Credit. 

In this way the step which ought to have inaugurated 
the Free Trade movement in Great Britain — namely, the 
repeal of the Bank Charter Act of 1844 — remains yet to 
be taken. Without rational banking for the people, the 
demand for more Socialism must grow and, with the politi- 
cal power in the hands of the suffering masses, Socialism of 
some kind may be confidently expected, unless it can be 
practically demonstrated that Individualism is capable of 
producing greater happiness for the working-classes than 
Collect ivism. 

That Individualism — personal freedom, private property, 
and freedom of contract — cannot succeed without Free 
Trade in Capital and Credit, and that with it Individualism 
will be conducive to greater prosperity for the masses than 
any nation ever experienced, it will be our aim in this 
chapter to demonstrate. 

In a previous chapter it has been pointed out that civi- 
lisation and prosperity are the outcome of division of labour, 
that the free system of division of labour enormously exceeds 
the compulsory in effectiveness and capacity to confer happi- 
ness on the masses, that free division of labour can only 
work through exchanges, that a value-measurer is indis- 
pensable for a developed system of exchanges, that direct 
barter, even with the use of a value-measurer, is insufficient 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 157 

for a widespread system of co-operation through exchanges, 
that indirect exchanges alone can be indefinitely expanded, 
and that media of exchange are indispensable for indirect 
exchanges. 

It has also been shown that the precious metals have been 
admitted as the value-measurer because they were the most 
desirable media of exchange, and that the precious metals 
were divided into small pieces and impressed with a stamp 
indicating their weight and alloy, and consequently their 
value. 

To better understand what is to follow, the reader is 
here warned against the use of such terms as money and 
currency. They should never be used in treatises and dis- 
cussions on exact Political Economy or Finance, because 
they do not represent anything in particular, and are 
simply vague terms generally made to stand for many things 
of a widely different nature. All authors of works on 
Political Economy who have made use of these terms have 
greatly increased their own difficulties and those of their 
readers. Definitions are of the greatest importance in 
economic matters, and it is as impossible to accurately 
define money and currency as to define accurately the four 
elements. Political Economy is apt to become gibberish if 
no distinction be made between such different things as coin 
and credit and capital, which are all wrongly designated by 
the term money. Even two bank-notes, similar in appear- 
ance, may by their nature and by their effects on their 
markets represent two extremes, and to call them both 
money would be to render discussion regarding them utterly 
futile. In referring, therefore, to the actual value-measurer 
we shall invariably use the word coin* 

Coin when introduced by no means became the medium 
of exchange of all transactions. It was far too scarce, and 



158 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

its transport far too difficult and unsafe to permit of its 
employment in wholesale transactions between distant places, 
and another medium of exchange was early used — namely, 
Credit. Thus experience at once taught the early traders 
of the world what many modern economists and politicians 
refuse to see, namely, that coin has two functions, namely, 
to serve as a value-measurer and as a medium of exchange. 

In olden times, as now, when one commercial house sent 
parcels of goods to another house in another country, or 
district, and was in the habit of receiving parcels of other 
goods in return, these shipments were calculated in coin but 
no coin was actually sent. The values were simply credited 
and debited in the books of the two transacting houses and 
the remittance of a balance in coin was quite an exceptional 
matter. In all such transactions the coin was the value- 
measurer, but credit was the medium of exchange. 

The word credit is used here in its economic sense in 
which it means not so much deferred payment as trans- 
mission of ownership of values by means of printed, written, 
spoken or understood records. 

Slight reflection will suffice to show that in order to use 
coin as a medium of exchange it must be present and must 
be handled in quantities ; but to be used as a value-measurer 
it need only be supposed. It will, therefore, surprise nobody 
to learn that imaginary coins, which have never been coined, 
have been used extensively as value-measurers, as, for ex- 
ample, the old Mark Banco of Hamburg. One Mark Banco 
simply meant a certain quantity of fine silver, and when a 
parcel of goods, or a cargo, was said to be worth so many 
Mark Banco every one knew how much it was worth in silver. 
The reliability of the Hamburg Mark Banco was largely due 
to the fact that it was not coined ; for at the time when the 
old bank at Hamburg was founded a great many of the 



■ : - 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 159 

continental sovereigns carried on an extensive trade as base 
coiners, and, not satisfied with debasing the coin of their own 
State, they frequently counterfeited any coin which had 
secured a good circulation. The trade of Hamburg greatly 
benefited by being carried on by a value-measurer which 
was beyond the reach of the base-coining princes because it 
was impalpable. 

Direct credit, as a medium of exchange, was however of 
limited application. It could only be used between people 
who knew and had confidence in each other. The division 
of labour — or to use a popular term, the business of the 
world — could not develop much beyond a very primitive 
stage with coin and direct credit as the only media of 
exchange. Indirect credit was, therefore, invented, and has 
gradually proved an invaluable factor in the economic 
development of humanity. How to apply it, how to use 
it, how to regulate it, how to extend it even among the 
illiterate and resourceless classes, had been for some time 
the great problem on the solution of which the relations 
between Capital and Labour and the prosperity of the 
working-classes has depended. 

The use of indirect credit arose out of coin-lending. A. 
wished to buy goods from B., but had not the requisite coin, 
though he might have been a man of substance. A. having 
nothing which he wished to part with and which B. might 
be willing to take, it was necessary for A. to find the coin, 
especially if B. did not know A. sufficiently to trust him. 
A. therefore borrowed from C. a certain amount of coin 
wherewith to pay B. 

As such cases, with increasing business, came to be of 
frequent occurrence, and as the people who were willing to 
lend their coin could not be expected to do so without 
remuneration, it became usual for the borrower to pay so 



160 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

much hire for the use of the coin. In this manner the 
trade of the money-lender arose. 

It often happened that solvent people required to borrow 
considerably more coin than the money-lender could get 
together, and, in order to facilitate business, a money-lender 
instead of lending his coin, lent his credit. The seller of 
goods, not knowing the buyer, but well aware that the 
money-lender had ample resources, accepted, in payment of 
his goods, a promise from the money-lender to pay the seller 
at a certain date. When the money-lender gave his promise 
to pay in writing, the seller could use the document for the 
payment of his own debts wherever the money -lender's posi- 
tion was known. In this way the trade in indirect credit 
arose, and the people who carried it on were called bankers. 

The employment of indirect credit as a medium of ex- 
change was an indispensable condition for the development 
of business, because it could be resorted to with the greatest 
facility and to any extent. Such was not the case with 
coin. This medium of exchange was handy and useful in 
small transactions, but the inconveniences it involved grew 
with the importance of the transactions in which it was 
used. It required careful weighing and counting, and, as it 
was often worn and debased, even moderate payments in coin 
became a troublesome matter. 

Though these inconveniences of coin-payments were among 
the most potent causes of the development of banking, they 
were very far from being the chief obstacles to the use of 
coin in large transactions. There was another obstacle — not 
realised at the time and seldom realised by statesmen and 
economists nowadays — which no amount of care and labour 
could have overcome, namely, the impossibility of circulating 
in any market any single coin above the quantity which is 
natural to that market. 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 161 

What amount of coin is natural to a market — that is to 
say, a country, a town, a district, within which business is 
carried on — is impossible to determine in figures, because it 
varies constantly with the varying conditions of the market. 
The circulating coin-mass may vary very little, but certain 
it is that each market has always as much coin as it can 
carry, not more and not less. This fact is now an economic 
axiom which no logical economist of the future will dispute. 
Like all economic laws, it does not cover unnatural situations 
and consequences of violence, but invariably holds good under 
normal circumstances. 

An example may render this clear. Let us suppose that 
the usual amount of coin circulating in a business district is, 
say, ^10,000. The ordinary business of the district will not 
cause any appreciable variation in this amount, which remains 
almost the same so long as no change in the condition of 
the market occurs. Should, however, new mineral resources 
be discovered within that market, or should some active people 
settle there, bringing outside capital with them, or should 
the population suddenly increase by immigration, there 
would be an increase in the quantity of the circulating coin, 
so long as these new causes of greater activity continue. 

But were a great treasure of gold coin suddenly dis- 
covered, or were coin imported into the district in the shape 
of a large loan, the conditions of the market would not 
be normal, and the circulating quantity of coin would 
momentarily exceed that which is natural to the market. 
But from the moment the discovered or newly-imported 
coin begins to circulate, it also begins to quit the market, 
and will continue to do so, until the amount of the circu- 
lating coin has been reduced to that which is normal to the 
market. After such a violent introduction of coin, and 
after the redressing of the balance, the market may be able 



162 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

to hold either more or less coin, or exactly the same quantity 
as before, according to the effect the imported coin has had 
on the condition of the market. As a rule, the coin-holding 
capacity of the market, after such a transaction, is less, and 
this for reasons which will be explained later on. 

The capacity of a market to hold coin does not vary by 
far in the same proportion as its business activity. In a 
quiet country, with few and poor inhabitants, selling and 
buying little from each other and deprived of banks, the 
total amount of business may not be large compared with 
the amount of circulating coin. But, as we proceed to 
busier markets, we find that the quantity of business trans- 
acted grows rapidly while the amount of the circulating 
coin grows slowly. In other words, a large increase in the 
business of a market only causes a small increase in the 
circulating coin, so that, the busier a market is, the smaller 
is the amount of circulating coin in proportion to the 
business transacted. 

Thus, for instance, while a sluggish little village may have 
a coin- circulation which is equal to, or larger than, its daily 
business, a large manufacturing town clears about 15 °/ of 
its business with coin, while in the city of London only 
1J °/o °f the daily business is cleared by coin. The con- 
clusion to be drawn from these facts is that, though the 
conditions of a market, such as size, wealth, and activity, 
determine the circulating quantity of coin, this quantity is 
always small and is in proportion to the transacted business, 
and always smallest in the largest, wealthiest and most active 
markets. 

The large proportion of business which, in an active 
market, is not cleared by coin is cleared by credit and 
banking. If, now, it be a fact that each market has as 
much coin as it can carry, and that, consequently, it is 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 163 

impossible to increase the circulating coin in a market, it 
should be evident that banking becomes the indispensable 
medium of exchange wherever business activity is to exceed 
a primitive stage. In order to better grasp this fact, it may 
be useful to give here a brief illustration of how that 
economic law which compels each market, at all times, 
to have as much coin as it can carry, prevents any permanent 
disturbance of the level of the gold supply in the world's 
markets. 

Let us suppose, for example, that a country, say Spain, has 
a government better equipped in political intrigue than in 
political economy — as many States have nowadays — and that 
this government has taken it into its head that there is not 
enough circulating coin in Spain, and therefore resolved to 
raise a loan in England of five million pounds sterling in 
order to supply the Spanish markets with coin. When the 
loan has been obtained, the remittance to Spain might be 
made in two ways : the whole amount might be remitted in 
drafts, or it might be shipped in actual gold. We will 
suppose that the Spanish government was bent on having 
the actual gold, say for coinage. 

The forcible removal of five millions of gold from London 
to Madrid would produce certain effects on the English 
market, and certain effects on the Spanish market. 

Let us first consider the effects on the English market. 
The only store from which the five million pounds could be 
had is the Bank of England. If there were other stores, it 
would not make much difference, as such would have to be 
replenished from the Bank of England vaults. The reduc- 
tion of that bank's gold-stock by five million pounds would, 
under normal circumstances, cause the Bank to somewhat 
raise the Bank Rate, and would generally inspire al] the 
financiers in the English market with the desire to lessen 



164 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

their liabilities and to increase their reserves. In other 
words, the lessened gold-stock in England would increase 
the value of gold in the eyes of all the British business men, 
and they would take measures to have more of it, in case of 
greater need. All the banks would restrict their lending 
and discounting, loans would be refused and balances 
called in. 

The merchants and the manufacturers of the country 
would experience what they would call a scarcity of money, 
orders would be cancelled, and all sellers with large stocks 
would be compelled to lower their prices in order to realise 
and obtain funds. Prices of goods would thus become cheap 
in England, and import from all other countries would 
be discouraged. The low prices of British goods would 
encourage export, and more British goods would leave the 
country; the payment of such goods, taken by foreign 
countries, would cause a general demand for gold abroad 
in order to pay for the goods exported from the United 
Kingdom. 

Let us now examine the effect of the five million pounds 
imported into Spain. The gold would be used by the 
Spanish government either for payments in Spain, or it 
would be handed over to the Spanish banks. Leaving out 
the incident of paper- currency, which does not affect the 
problem before us, we may be sure that the banks would, 
after receiving this extra supply of gold, grant more credits 
and thus circulate the gold all over the country. Its presence 
would encourage the Spanish people to extend all their 
business operations. There would be in Spain a greater 
demand for labourers and raw materials. A larger pro- 
duction, as well as a larger consumption, would cause a 
general rise in prices. This rise would render all goods pro- 
duced in Spain dearer and lessen the export of Spanish 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 165 

goods. Especially less would go to England, because there, 
as we have seen, all import had been discouraged. The high 
prices in Spain would encourage import of foreign goods 
into that country, especially British goods, as export from 
the United Kingdom had been encouraged by low prices. 
This would leave a trade-balance in favour of Great Britain, 
for the payment of which the imported five million pounds 
would leave Spain and again return to Great Britain. 

The gold-balance which was disturbed by the forcible 
export of five million pounds would thus again be re- 
established, and Spain would have five million pounds more 
debts, but not a real more gold than before. The chances 
are, on the contrary, that the feverish consumption, the re- 
action from the artificial inflation and the diminished export, 
would have caused an extra reduction in their normal coin 
circulation, leaving Spain with less gold than she had before 
borrowing the five millions. 

The leading features of the phenomenon have been given 
here. In reality, of course, it would be complicated by many 
circumstances, such as, for example, the trade with other 
countries, but the result of such a transaction would always 
be as here described. 

Each of the numerous loans, granted by the United 
Kingdom, has resulted in the same maintenance of the gold 
level. As a rule, however, coin shipment is not resorted to. 
It is generally found cheaper to remit the granted loan in 
drafts. In that case not only the rise in the price of goods 
in the borrowing country, but the rise in the price of English 
gold, pound sterling (that is, the rise in the rate of exchange 
on London), directly encourages an increase in the import of 
the borrowing country from the lending one, and what was 
intended to be a remittance of coin at once takes the form 
of a shipment of goods. 



166 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

How impossible it is to increase the circulating coin in a 
market is illustrated by many other transactions and financial 
incidents other than international loans. But one more may 
be here given, drawn from experiments with paper-money. 
In order to understand it clearly, it should be borne in mind 
that notes, issued by a government enjoying good credit, and 
officially recognised as legal tenders, are representatives of 
coin and affect the market in the same manner as coin. 

Many countries, whose government has laboured under the 
very strange delusion that the quantity of the circulating 
coin is not sufficient for the nation's business, or which have 
to face large expenditure without any metallic resources, 
have undergone the infliction of an inflated paper-currency. 
The universal experience, on such occasions, has been that 
the notes issued by the government do not increase by one 
single unit the legal tenders. Each issue simply drives out 
of the country a corresponding quantity of gold, and the 
remaining gold, plus the new notes, represents exactly the 
same quantity of legal tenders as the gold represented before. 
If the issuing of government notes continues, after all the 
gold has been driven out of the country, and the credit of 
the government is good enough to prevent any abnormal 
depreciation in the notes, the notes will fall in value in 
exactly the same proportion as they exceed the gold they 
have superseded. The country has, therefore, more notes, 
but they represent exactly the same amount of legal tenders 
as did the original quantity of gold. 

The impossibility of disturbing the world's coin-level 
(government legal-tender notes counted as coin) has been 
insisted upon here, because, when recognised, the intro- 
duction of rational banking in the United Kingdom is not 
far off ; and also because foreign States and our Colonies are 
constantly inflicting untold economic and financial troubles 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 167 

on themselves by not realising this economic axiom. When 
they are short of capital, and when they have vitiated the 
mechanism of their credit, so as to render it useless, the cry 
is that they have not enough ' money, 1 and, in order to get 
more * money," they try to borrow coin in England, but get 
only goods. The United States, committing the same error, 
are under the constant delusion that they have not enough 
6 currency.' They dilute their 4 currency ' in all sorts of 
ways, and then they get alarmed when their gold leaves for 
Europe in the same proportion. There is, therefore, hardly 
any economic mistake more common nowadays, and hardly 
any more pregnant with misery and suffering to the 
working-classes than the one which has been here exposed. 

Tt will now be clear that the supply of Indirect Credit, or 
banking, is absolutely necessary in an industrial country, as 
only an extremely limited amount of commercial and indus- 
trial activity can be attained to with coin as the only 
medium of exchange. 

Unfortunately, the true mission of banking — the clearing 
of business without the use of coin — was either not under- 
stood, or else very little considered, when the banking systems 
of the world were inaugurated. 

Modern banks did not come out fully equipped from the 
head of any genius, as did Minerva from the head of Jupiter, 
but are the last links of a long chain of evolution. All 
improvements in banking methods have been gradual, and 
achieved with the narrow purpose of saving work, time, and 
salaries, and of increasing the banker's profits. The great 
services English banks render in clearing, and therefore per- 
mitting an enormous volume of business, is not the result of 
a pre-conceived scheme, but simply an incident in a develop- 
ment urged on by circumstances and necessities. Even 
quite modern treatises on banking start with the quaint 



168 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

information that banks are 6 institutions for the warehousing 
and dealing in money.'' 

The bank legislation which exists to this day in every 
civilised country bears ample witness that the true mission 
and full importance of banking have nowhere been under- 
stood. In many countries, as in England, large central banks 
were, generations ago, established under government control, 
and generally as much with the object of helping govern- 
ment out of some financial distress as of benefiting the com- 
merce of the country. 

The evil effects which government interference with bank- 
ing has produced on trade and industry all the world over 
have never been estimated and hardly thought of, and this 
because there has been no opportunity of comparison. The 
few examples of real freedom in banking which experience 
affords, though strikingly satisfactory, date from times when 
trade and industry were in their infancy, and when economic 
progress was effectually obstructed by a host of unfavourable 
circumstances. Besides, the total absence of all knowledge 
of the economic laws which underlie banking caused people 
to attribute these marvellous results which such freedom 
produced to other causes. Then, as now, the unfortunate 
idea prevailed among the masses, as well as among leading 
politicians and financiers, that government interference and 
control could not possibly inflict injury on any institution, 
but were bound to produce beneficial effects wherever applied. 
Thus the abolition of Free Trade in Banking in Scotland 
and Switzerland was tacitly accepted as an improvement. 

It thus has come about that the elaborate legislation, 
avowedly introduced in order to benefit and encourage trade 
and industry, and thereby increase the prosperity of the 
masses, has actually constituted insurmountable obstacles 
to the economic progress of the country, and is the irresistible 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 169 

cause of financial troubles, ruinous stagnation, and untold 
misery among the masses. 

The British people who, of all nations, have shown the 
greatest aptitude for Political Economy, and who in twenty- 
five years increased their trade by six hundred per cent., by 
legislating to a small extent in harmony with the economic 
laws, have patiently until now submitted, like other nations, 
to the manifold evils inseparable from an inadequate banking 
organisation. Our own nation knows enough about the 
subject to pity the Russian peasant's systematic ruin by the 
paper-rouble system and the 6 village-eater ' ; to sympathise 
with the Italians struggling against the evils of a debased 
currency and corrupt banks ; to grumble at our Colonies for 
stopping trade by means of bank crises ; to curse the Argen- 
tine Republic for creating financial dilemmas through their 
mistakes in banking ; and to laugh at our American cousins 
for pouring their gold, their capital, their prosperity, into 
their currency-sieve, in the hope of accomplishing the im- 
possible. We see the motes in our neighbour's eye, but we 
fail to see the beam in our own. 

The reason of this is that our banking system has, along 
with its great hidden defects, certain conspicuous advantages. 
The fact that Sir Robert Peel's Bank Charter Act of 1844 
has accomplished one object which has been drummed into 
the ears of the British public as one of overwhelming im- 
portance is, at this moment, the main consideration of those 
financiers who still cling to Sir Robert Peel's colossal blunder. 
This one object was a stable 'currency. 1 That such a desid- 
eratum should be made to go before every other considera- 
tion may be excusable in view of all the ' currency ' miseries 
prevalent in many other countries. Despite this, the anxiety 
about the stolidity of the 'currency' must always to the 
logical mind appear intensely ridiculous, simply because 



170 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

there is no such thing as 6 currency, 1 and if we choose to call 
gold c currency,' 1 government could not find any better way 
of keeping it stable than by leaving it alone ; or, if the 
government is entrusted with the coinage, of carrying it out 
as fairly and honestly as has been done during the last half 
century. To allow a certain quantity of gold to represent 
the same quantity of gold is the wonderful secret of keeping 
the ' currency ' stable ! All that can be said, then, in 
defence of PeePs Bank Act is that, while it produces an 
untold amount of evil in the country, there are still some 
evils that it has not produced. 

A glance at the consequences of the Bank Act will make 
this clear. The leading feature of the Act is practically to 
give to the Bank of England the monopoly of note-issuing 
in this country. It did not deprive those country banks of 
their issuing right, which in 1844 had an established note- 
circulation. But it bound them down not to increase their 
circulation, and prohibited any other bank or firm from issu- 
ing notes. At the same time the note-issuing of the Bank 
of England was divided into two classes, though the same 
form of some notes is used for both, namely the fiduciary 
notes and those issued against gold deposits. The former may 
not exceed <£! 4,000,000, the amount of the debt of the State 
to the Bank, while the latter may be issued to any amount, 
provided gold is deposited in a corresponding amount in 
the Bank. 

In view of the truth that notes issued against deposits of 
gold are simply gold-warrants, the fact remains that the 
note-circulation of the country is to-day slightly less than 
it was in 1844, when the business of the country was about 
one-sixth of what it is now, which shows how drastic were 
the measures which Sir Robert Peel took to protect the 
stability of the ' currency ' ! One of the arbitrary, motive- 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 171 

less regulations of the Bank Act is the prohibition of notes in 
the country under £5. Consequently the working-classes, 
and the wage-paying industries, are precluded from using 
notes. This wonderful enactment at once raises, or ought 
to raise, the questions : If notes are harmful, why allow them 
at all, and if they are useful, why not allow the working- 
classes to benefit from them ? The reply must be left to the 
defenders of the Bank Act, if there are any. 

Let us now see what are the effects on trade and industry 
of such thoughtless regulations. 

Such banks as issued notes before 1844 and continue to 
issue them now, finding their development in this direction 
completely cut off by the limitation of their issue, and that 
their markets were unable to absorb even the permitted 
amount of issue in the shape of notes of such large amounts 
as £5 and i?10, had with the view to development only one 
course open to them, namely, to develop as deposit banks. 
All the large and small banks started after 1844 are deposit 
banks. Consequently it is correct to say that all English 
banks — with the exception of small co-operative establish- 
ments, called Friends of Labour Aid Societies, and pawn- 
brokers — are deposit banks. 

To understand the effect of this state of things, it should 
be known that all banking may be classed under two headings 
— deposit banking and distributing banking. The former 
consists in collecting capital wherever it may be found, and 
making it fructify as much as possible; the latter consists 
in distributing capital in districts where it is most needed, 
and among people who can best use it and who are most 
willing to pay for its use. All deposit-banks naturally do 
some distributing business, and all distributing-banks do 
some deposit business. But whether a bank is to be classed 
as a deposit-bank, or as a distributing-bank, depends on 



172 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

whether it makes the deposits, or distributing, its main 
business and the chief source of its profits. 

All English banks are deposit-banks, because to obtain 
deposits is their first care and the indispensable condition 
for profit. As to the employment of the collected capital, 
the Directors 1 duty towards the depositors and towards the 
shareholders, if any, is to consider safe investment in the 
first place. Whether the capital is employed in the bank^s 
market, or outside it, what use it is put to when invested, 
whether those who use it are consumers or producers, etc., are 
to the manager of a deposit-bank quite secondary considera- 
tions. It is his duty to look to security in the first place, and 
he may, if he choose, disregard all other considerations. 

For a manager of a deposit-bank to ascertain that the 
investments he has selected are safe, means that he has 
made sure that they are readily realisable. A deposit-bank 
employs in its business capital deposited by its clients to 
such an extent as to leave the capital of the bank only a 
fraction of the amounts handled. The greater part of these 
deposits have been made on the understanding that they 
may be retired by the depositor at short notice, or at any 
time he chooses. Deposit-banks are, therefore, under an 
obligation which hardly any of them could fulfil, namely, to 
repay on demand the full amount deposited with them. As 
a matter of fact, the banker knows that only a certain 
portion of the deposits will be demanded every day, and all 
he has to do is to provide what experience has taught him 
is required daily. The fact that the bank meets all the 
demands made every day, that it boldly pretends to be able to 
pay everything, and that the clients know that, though the 
bank might not be able to pay everybody in one day, it will 
finally pay all its debts if ever put to the test, is sufficient 
to inspire public confidence in the establishment. 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 173 

Any day a deposit banker may be called upon to repay 
more of the capital entrusted to him than his liquid reserve 
can cover, and, in such cases, it is imperative that he should 
be able to realise securities, or call in loans, with the smallest 
possible loss of time. Any failure to pay even the smallest 
percentage of the demands made upon him would produce a 
general run, which might be disastrous to the future of the 
bank. The readability of his securities is, therefore, a con- 
sideration of the first magnitude with a deposit banker. 

A capital-distributing banker is influenced by utterly 
different, if not quite opposite, considerations. As we have 
no distributing-banks in England, it will be necessary, for 
the sake of clearness, to instance such as have existed, or 
as now exist in other countries. 

Experience has supplied us with two types of distributing- 
banks, whose methods to the superficial observer may appear 
widely different, but which nevertheless benefit the public in 
the same manner : namely, the Scottish banks before 1844, 
more especially the small branch offices; and the French 
banquiers. 

The difference between the old Scottish methods and those 
of the French banquier lies chiefly in the credit-instruments 
used. Banking mechanism in general consists of account- 
books kept at the office of the bank and of some kind of 
credit-instrument circulating among the public. Thus the 
circulating credit-instrument used by English banks is the 
cheque, by the Scottish banks the note, and by the banquiers 
the draft. The note of the Scottish banker, and the draft 
discounted by the French banquiers, are apparently widely 
different, but it will be easy to show that their beneficial 
effects are due to the same economic laws. 

To arrive at a good circulation is the object of a bank of 
the old Scottish type, that is, an unsupervised, note-issuing 



174 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

bank ; and this not only on account of the cheapness of the 
credit thus created, but because in the market most likely 
to be selected for such a bank — namely, a poor district — 
there would hardly be any other way of creating credit at 
all. In order to arrive at a circulation of notes on which no 
State prestige has been conferred, and which consequently 
remain private, local credit-instruments, the issuing banker 
must adopt certain methods, without which none of his 
notes will circulate at all. He must fulfil the following six 
conditions, which are here numbered, in order to facilitate 
reference to them : 

1. He must circulate his notes only in his own market — in 
the district where his bank is known. — For if he makes pay- 
ment with them or lends them in other parts of the country, 
they will be returned immediately upon him for gold- 
payment by some clearing-house, or some other bank, and 
he will have lost his gold without having succeeded in cir- 
culating his notes. 

% He must lend his notes only to people who stand in need 
of credit and are willing and able to pay for it. — If he were 
to buy goods for them, pay debts with them, or even to give 
them away, they would immediately be presented for pay- 
ment, as they would have caused an extra consumption in 
the bank's market which would have to be replaced by 
imports from other districts where the notes would not be 
known, and where the gold, taken from the issuing bank, 
would have to be sent. 

S. He must lend his notes only to producers or business 
men connected with production. — Were he to lend his notes 
to consumers or people who in other ways destroy capital, 
the above-mentioned phenomena would again take place — 
increased consumption, importation of goods, and exporta- 
tion of the banker's gold. 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 175 

4. He must lend his notes only to such producers as work 
their business at a profit to themselves. — Were he to lend his 
notes to people carrying on a spurious or losing production, 
that is people who consume more than they produce, he 
would obtain the same unsatisfactory result as if he had 
lent them to consumers : for an unsuccessful producer is 
an actual consumer of capital. 

5. He must not issue more notes than are useful to the 
production in his district. — If he over-issues he over-stimu- 
lates his market, causes abnormal demand for the raw 
materials and labour of the district, and consequently a rise 
in the cost of production. This rise will diminish the 
export of products and encourage imports and cause a 
trade-balance against the district, to pay which the banker's 
notes will be presented for gold or for drafts on other 
districts, which to the banker is the same. Attempts at 
over-issue will, therefore, diminish, not increase, his circula- 
tion, and at the same time diminish his profits, and augment 
his losses and his risks. 

6. He should be guided in his issuing by the state of his 
metallic cash. — When he finds that his notes come back 
daily^for payment in gold in larger quantities than he issues 
them, he knows that the utmost limit of his circulation has 
been reached, and that he cannot extend his note-issuing 
any further until his market has expanded and improved. 
Such improvement will be manifest in the increase of his 
metallic cash. 

It will be seen at a glance that these conditions for a 
successful note-issuing business do not emanate from any 
authority, but are the natural outcome of the force of 
circumstances. There is nothing to compel a free note- 
issuing banker to observe them except his self-interest. He 
may disregard them all, or only one of them, but in any of 



176 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

these cases he will not have a circulation, will have only 
small profits, and probably many losses. 

While, therefore, the deposit-banker looks for the 
wealthiest customers and the securities most easily realisable 
in the open market, the issuing-banker must look for clients 
who are poor enough to appreciate a moderate credit and 
willing to work their business with the banker's notes. Such 
clients as are indispensable to the issuing-banker are gene- 
rally far from being rich; many of them may possess 
nothing at all. While the deposit-bank can be started only 
in a district which is sufficiently developed to afford a certain 
amount of deposits, an issuing bank can best flourish in a 
poor district, so long as there are natural resources and 
people willing to work. While a deposit bank must endea- 
vour to oblige its richest clients in the first place, regardless 
of everything else, the issuing bank must select able, thrifty, 
and honest people with but little regard to their resources. 
While a deposit bank opens banking accounts for its clients 
after they have paid in a certain amount of capital, an 
issuing bank opens cash credit accounts for its clients 
without any payment at all, as a pure credit. While a 
deposit-bank must and can demand first-class securities, an 
issuing-bank must be satisfied with quasi-moral securities, 
such as the guarantee of two or more guarantors. While a 
deposit-bank has only a secondary and indirect interest in 
the district around it, the solidarity between the issuing 
banker and his market is complete, and his business can 
only flourish if the neighbourhood flourishes. 

These contrasts, which will be borne out by all bankers 
experienced in the two branches, suffice to show how difficult, 
if not impossible, it would be for a deposit bank of the 
ordinary English type to render the industrial classes such 
direct and powerful assistance as the issuing bank, issuing 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 177 

notes in such amounts as are most suitable to wage-paying 
trades. 

Without the notes such capital-distributing banking would 
not only be without any commercial raison cTStre, but would 
probably incur expenses far beyond their profits. Besides, 
a bank without unsupervised notes would lack the most 
essential condition for capital-distributing methods, namely, 
the close and reliable control over its market and his clients, 
without which the bank would work in the dark and might 
be utterly misled or deceived. 

The other type of distributing-banking with which ex- 
perience has supplied us, namely, the French banquier, calls 
for but a brief description. The expression 6 French banquier^ 
is used here because these methods seem to have arisen in 
France, though they have now spread to all the neighbour- 
ing States of that country. The banquier, like others, is 
by law prohibited from issuing notes, and the credit-instru- 
ments he chiefly uses are the drafts of his clients. It is 
usual in France for business people to draw drafts on such 
of their clients as buy goods from them at shorter or longer 
terms. The business of the banquier consists in discounting 
these drafts, charging interest and a commission. 

When a producer or a merchant has during the day sent 
off twenty parcels of goods and twenty invoices, he draws 
twenty drafts on the buyers. These he takes at once to 
the banquier, to whose order they are made out, and who 
discounts them unaccepted. The banquier makes out a 
statement, showing the amount of the drafts, less the dis- 
count for the time they have to run, the possible exchange 
differences for remote places, and ^ to J °/ commission. The 
nett amount of this statement is credited to the account 
of his client under the date of the transaction, and the 
client is allowed to draw cash against it as he requires. 

M 



178 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

A little reflection will now show that the banquier is 
placed in a similar position to that of an issuing banker. 
The clients he must seek are not the rich, not the consumers, 
not the speculators, not the company promoters, not the 
jobbers, not the sharebrokers, not the money-lenders, not 
the high officials and other non-productive people. The 
clients he alone can make a profit from are such men and 
firms as make use of the raw materials and working power 
of the district for the production of some kind of goods, 
and who sell such goods in other districts. The drafts he 
receives from such clients being payable outside his own 
market, he at once remits to bankers in such places where 
they are payable. These at once credit him with the 
amounts and keep returning to him drafts drawn on his 
district from other places. These drafts he collects and 
thus obtains the necessary cash for his own clients. If he 
works with a small capital he may send heavy and large 
drafts to larger bankers in some more central place, who 
will allow him to draw at sight on himself or on Paris. The 
banker in the central place might send the largest drafts to be 
discounted by a Parisian banker. These again might discount 
them in the Bank of France, as at this stage the drafts would 
bear five signatures, three of them being those of bankers. 

It will be seen from this that the banquier who first 
discounts the drafts can attain to a very large turn-over with 
but a moderate capital, so long as he discounts drafts drawn 
in other places than his own. Were he to discount the pro- 
missory notes of rich consumers in his own place, or accom- 
modation drafts got up between his own clients perhaps 
payable in his own bank, he would have no pretext for 
sending away or re-discounting such documents, but have to 
keep them in his portfolio until maturity, and lose the use 
of his capital during all the time such bills have to run. 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 179 

The issuing bankers and the banquiers both render an 
immense service to their country, inasmuch as they provide 
capital, and constantly renew the capital, to those people 
who by a natural evolution, in virtue of the law of the sur- 
vival of the fittest, prove themselves most capable of using it, 
with the best possible results for the country — to those who 
utilise the natural resources and who provide labour for the 
workers, and this with the smallest possible regard to the 
property qualifications of their clients. The service capital- 
distributing banks render to the country where they operate 
is the establishment of an intimate connection and a har- 
monious co-operation between Capital and Labour. 

Our deposit banks, though useful and indispensable within 
their spheres, do not fulfil this mission : for the effect of 
their activity — unsupported as it is by capital-distributing 
banks — is a severance of Capital and Labour. The branches 
of the county banks collect capital wherever it can be found 
and send it to the head office. The head office again sends 
such parts of it, for which they cannot find in their own 
locality such investments as they require, to London. The 
result is that London suffers frequently from a plethora 
of capital, which often lasts until a period of unhealthy 
inflation sets in. When a c boom ' is on, an immense amount 
of capital is invested in hazardous foreign undertakings, or 
in bad companies, where the bulk of it is frequently lost. 
Of late years the losses of such investments must be counted 
by hundreds of millions, and the effects are felt by every 
human being in the country, not to say by the whole 
civilised world : for the colossal amount of wealth that is 
thus thrown away ought to have formed the basis for more 
work, for more production, more profits, and more con- 
sumption. 

For want of a proper connecting mechanism, in the shape 



180 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

of capital-distributing banks, British manufacturers and 
other producers, who are not capitalists, struggle under 
great financial difficulties in order to compete with foreigners 
who are liberally supplied by their banquiers. They have to 
buy from the last link in a chain of middle-men and sell to 
the first link in another chain of middle-men. They have 
to limit their production to what they can produce by their 
own means and what they can scrape together, often on 
usurious terms. Obliged to recoup themselves by reducing 
the wages of their workers, they have to fall back on the 
sweating system, which is gradually invading even our great 
industries. 

While the interest in the city is hardly 1 % P er annum, 
millions of be-sweated workers in the country must, for 
want of the small amount of capital and the financial 
organisation required to put their industries on a sound 
economic footing, submit to the terrible tyranny of the 
middle-man — that indispensable factor in every country 
where rational banking is prohibited. 

Such are some of the effects of the severance of Capital 
and Labour which a onesided system of banking like our 
own is bound to produce. Our banks and bankers are not 
to blame, because it is not in their power to carry on a 
capital-distributing business so long as the indispensable 
media of exchange for such a system are prohibited by Act 
of Parliament. 

Besides the miseries produced by the severance of Capital 
and Labour, the Bank Act of 1844 produces poverty and 
stagnation in another not less potent fashion. By prohibit- 
ing small credit instruments, capable of being used in the 
productive trades, and free to multiply according to the ex- 
pansion of trade, agriculture and other industries are limited 
to that amount of business which can be worked by comi alone 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 181 

as a medium of exchange. The cheque is a good credit in- 
strument as far as it goes. It is all that the financial world, 
the wholesale trades, and the upper classes require. But it is 
of a far too limited application to be of any essential use to 
the masses of the people. Wages cannot be paid in cheques, 
small producers and tradesmen who cannot afford to have a 
banking account cannot pay in cheques, the whole of the 
distributing trade and all business connected with the work- 
ing-classes must be carried on without cheques. 

To understand what this means to the working classes of 
the United Kingdom, it is only needful to recall what has 
been said in the early part of this chapter about the impos- 
sibility of disturbing the level of the world's coin supply. 

When we know that every development of business, every 
rise in wages, every increase in the number of the employed, 
demands a proportionate increase in the media of exchange ; 
also that the law of England forbids the use of any other 
popular medium of exchange than coin, and finally, that an 
inexorable economic law prevents the increase of the coin 
circulating in a country — when we know all this, what con- 
clusion must we draw ? 

Every one, who can reason at all, must draw the con- 
clusion that the production of the wage-paying trades, 
the wages, and the number of the employed, must be 
reduced to such quantities as are compatible with the quan- 
tity of the circulating coin, or that if industry expands, ana 
the population increases, the greater number of workers, and 
the increased amount of work must be paid by the same 
amount of cash as existed prior to the expansion, and that, 
consequently, work must be paid less, and each worker 
receive lower wages. 

The truth of this conclusion will be acknowledged, even 
by those who have never given any attention to economic 



182 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

questions. But such abstract reasoning will probably not 
satisfy practical minds as to the necessity of changing our 
system. It will, therefore, be necessary to show how the 
confirmation of the above conclusions may be found in 
actualities. 

It should at once be acknowledged that, however insuffi- 
cient the circulating coin is for the requirements of a healthy 
industry, there is never any difficulty in obtaining it for those 
who have sufficient capital and credit. When, therefore, an 
extra supply of coin is wanted in a country, it can always be 
had momentarily either by increasing the quantity of coin 
usually received, or by diminishing the quantity usually sent 
away. But what are the effects on the country ? 

Coin determines the value of all other goods by its quan- 
titative presence in a market. The circulating quantity of 
the coin cannot, therefore, be increased without producing a 
corresponding rise in the prices of all other goods. The 
effect might spread slowly in a country like India, or it 
might spread quickly in a country like England. But it is 
always there, and it always spreads. 

To make this clearer, the case of a gold-mining coimtry 
may be instanced. Round the gold mine, the district where 
the gold makes its first appearance, it is cheaper than in any 
other part of the world. To state this is equivalent to 
stating that all other goods are dearer near the gold mine 
than anywhere else. Were it not so, the gold would remain 
in the neighbourhood of the mine, for it is only spread all 
over the world because it affords a benefit each time it is 
exchanged. Like all other goods, it quits the places where 
it is cheap, and seeks the places where it is dear, until some- 
thing like that universal level is established which com- 
merce tends to maintain. 

If the gold, instead of being brought out of the earth, be 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 183 

brought from other districts or other countries, the effect is 
exactly the same. The old proportion between the quantity 
of gold and the quantity of goods is disturbed, and gold 
goes down in value in that place — a fact generally expressed 
by the statement that other goods go up in value. 

Then we have again the phenomenon, already described in 
this chapter, of diminished export, increased import, and the 
return of the gold whence it came, either directly, or by 
circuitous roads. 

It will, therefore, be plain that any attempt to increase 
the circulating coin by importation of gold is only momen- 
tarily successful, and that the results are such as to deprive 
all producers of their profits. The disappearance of profits 
tends to diminished activity, to reduced wages, and to the 
dismissal of working men. 

When manufacturers and other employers find by experi- 
ence that every attempt to expand their business leads to 
loss of profit, they resign themselves to a dull business. Com- 
petition and the desire of employers to do as much business 
as possible keep, however, the activity of the country at that 
point where the high cost of production — which the employ- 
ment of metallic coin involves — allows of just a living profit. 
On the other hand, the employers, in order to live at all, 
take advantage of the bad state of the labour market to 
obtain their labourers at a sheer living wage. In this manner, 
by our deplorable folly of attempting to carry on a large 
industry with the worst possible medium of exchange — gold 
— we maintain a chronic depression, which is bound gradually 
to grow as the population increases and the consuming power 
of the masses dwindles. 

In order the better to understand our economic troubles, let 
us suppose that some sudden cause — the adoption of com- 
plete Free Trade in the United States, for example — gave a 



184 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

powerful impulse to the expansion of our trade, and let us see 
what would happen under the present system in the present 
stage of our development. The intensified demand for goods 
would induce all our manufacturers to increase their pro- 
duction. They would require the assistance of every unem- 
ployed man, and a mass of raw material, machinery, fuel, 
extended transports. They would require to increase their 
expenses in every way. They could not launch out in this 
manner except by using a far larger quantity of media of 
exchange. If the impulse for brisk trade were strong enough, 
even wages would rise considerably, and the working classes, 
would require more media of exchange. No suitable notes 
being allowed, everybody would have to fall back on coin. 
Where would the coin come from ? 

It would certainly not come from abroad, so long as the 
6 boom , continued, because the extra demand for provisions 
and raw materials would turn the foreign rates of exchange 
dead against the importation of gold, until the export of 
manufactured goods had assumed large proportions. The 
gold could, at the beginning of the ' boom,'' only come from 
the Bank of England, but as soon as a few millions had left 
the coffers of the bank to assist trade in the provinces, the 
bank would have to raise its rate of discount to prevent the 
rest of the gold from quitting its vaults. If the rising pro- 
sperity continued, the bank would have to go on raising its 
rate even to panic-point. A high bank rate means the cur- 
tailing of advances, refusal of loans, calling in of balances, 
destruction of credit, financial difficulties for thousands of 
firms, numerous failures, the ruin of merchants and manu- 
facturers, and, perhaps, a bank panic. 

In this way our want of rational media of exchange ever 
threatens to turn every budding of prosperous times into a 
dangerous panic, and we have no other choice than to seek 



MI 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 185 

refuge in chronic stagnation, as we have done for the last 
twenty years. 

When we realise the awful consequences of the prohibi- 
tion of rational banking, we necessarily wonder why every 
civilised nation at this moment submits to a system which 
brings misfortune to so many and disadvantages to every 
one of its citizens. The reason is twofold. The evils of 
State-vitiated banking systems have never been attributed 
to their true cause. They have been attributed to many 
others, such as the fall of Adam, the weakness and wicked- 
ness of man, the greed of the upper classes, the desire of 
politicians to keep the masses under effective control, 
Individualist institutions, the inexcusable necessity for 
humanity to pass through more or less painful evolutions — 
all causes more plausible in the eyes of the masses than those 
which exact economy reveals. Then again the remedy — to 
leave banking free to regulate itself according to demand — 
has ever been looked upon as utter madness. This view is 
natural and pardonable enough, when it is considered that 
the difference between free credit instruments and paper 
money has never until within the last few years been pro- 
perly understood. The enormous evils which civilised coun- 
tries have suffered from paper money have invariably been 
attributed to too much freedom in note issuing; and any 
proposition to render that form of banking free has been 
looked upon as a plan to swamp the country with valueless 
paper money and to dilute the currency. 

Even to-day the idea of Free Trade in Banking and 
Credit appears to the great majority so preposterous, that the 
few leading politicians and financiers who have mastered the 
question deem it still unripe for practical legislation. They 
deem it useless to speak publicly in favour of the true remedy 
against the bulk of our economic and social anomalies, namely 



186 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

the repeal of the Bank Act of 1844, or at least that part of 
it which prohibits suitable media of exchange for the pro- 
ductive trades. 

The apprehended dangers are : firstly, over-issue, conse- 
quently inflation with all its deplorable reactions; and 
secondly, loss to the people by dishonoured notes. 

After having considered the already mentioned six con- 
ditions which the force of circumstances, or, in other words, 
the laws of Political Economy, enforce upon the issuing 
banker, no one will believe it easy to defraud the public by 
the issuing of unsupervised notes. For anybody to accept 
as payment notes issued by an unknown bank, would, under 
a free system, be as much out of the question as to take the 
I.O.U. of an unknown man. Many people are now cheated 
by cheques, simply because the possession of a cheque-book of 
a good bank inspires a certain amount of confidence. But 
should any one offer bank notes issued by himself, or by an 
unknown bank, such an action would inspire at least as much 
suspicion as the cheque-book inspires confidence. Swindlers 
would never undertake the difficult task of swindling with 
notes when cheques, I.O.U. 's, and promissory notes offer such 
far greater facilities. 

The fear that a banker, in possession of a certain amount 
of credit, might use it in order to over-issue, and thus 
willingly or unwillingly cause the public a loss, is entirely 
without any reasonable foundation. We have seen that an 
issuing banker can circulate his notes only by lending them 
liberally to successful producers. Against the notes he 
issues he receives no gold, but securities which, for the most 
part, are not realisable or even portable. A banker, who is 
bent on defrauding the public, would therefore not seek to 
develop his circulation which gives him no gold, and which, 
moreover, is limited to the small amount of notes which his 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 187 

market can hold. He would naturally lay himself out to 
receive deposits, a form of banking which may be carried on 
to any extent, and to which neither the laws of economy nor 
the wisdom of Parliament place any limits. 

Experience has shown that if a bank carries on a note- 
issuing business alongside of a deposit business, the former 
exercises a sobering influence on the latter; the note-issue 
causes the imprudent banker any amount of inconvenience as 
soon as he embarks on the swindling tack, and is likely to 
pull him up long before his position has become desperate. 

The Scotch banks tried hard, during the first fifty years 
of their freedom, to over-issue and inflate their markets, but 
they were always forced back within those lines of moderation 
which the free play of the economic laws determined. The 
Scotch bankers knew no theories, they had acquired all their 
methods from experience, sometimes dearly bought. Nowa- 
days, with the economic laws which underlie banking com- 
pletely explained before him, no banker would ever commit 
any of those mistakes in which the Scotch banks persisted 
during fifty years. The absence of bank failures in Scotland 
during the free period cannot, therefore, be ascribed, with 
some writers, to the financial ability of the nation, but was, 
and will ever be, the natural outcome of liberty. 

The proofs, showing to the complete satisfaction of any 
logical mind that the free and unsupervised issue of private 
banks involves no danger to the public, may be summed up 
as follows : — Free notes are safe because, in order to circulate 
them, the banker must trust the public with a far larger 
amount of capital (in the shape of cash credit accounts) 
than the most successful note circulation would represent. 
While, therefore, our deposit banking system means trusting 
the banks on the part of the people, free note-issuing means 
trusting the people on the part of the banks. Consequently 



188 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

a deposit bank may be dangerous to the public, while a free 
note-issuing bank cannot be dangerous to the public but 
only to itself. 

It should be noted that every single example of over- 
issue and failures of note-issuing banks, quoted by the 
advocates of monopoly, has invariably turned out to be, on 
close inspection, an example of the dangers of government 
interference. For instance, all the note-issuing banks in the 
United States which failed in 1838 ; the mass of note-issuing 
banks which in England failed before 1844 ; the Scotch 
note-issuing banks which failed after 1844; John Law's 
gigantic paper money experiment in France. All these 
notorious bank failures are due to one cause — the inter- 
ference on the part of official authorities with the notes in 
so far that media of exchange which ought to have remained 
simple and useful credit instruments, such as our cheques are, 
were transmuted into mischievous paper money by the more 
or less active supervision to which they were subjected. 

What an amazing difference it must make to a country to 
be deprived of credit instruments, for which it has a crying 
need, and to be gorging it instead with paper money for which 
it has no need whatever, can be best realised by considering 
what would happen to London if government undertook to 
supervise, or guarantee, every cheque drawn. In supposing 
such an event, it should be remembered that credit instru- 
ments, transformed into paper money by government super- 
vision, are subjected to the same economic laws as metallic 
coin, and cannot circulate in larger amounts than the metallic 
coin [they have superseded. Consequently government 
supervision of cheques would in London reduce their number 
by at least 98 °/ . 

Who, then, can wonder at the above-mentioned bank 
failures, when all these banks, in their vain hope to supply 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 189 

indispensable credit instruments in a form suitable to the 
productive trades and to the working class, were actually 
over-filling their market with spurious coin, which of course, 
to begin with, produced an enormous artificial inflation, and 
afterwards, as soon as the paper money — in virtue of the 
Gresham law — had driven the metallic coin out of the 
country, a tremendous reaction with the inevitable panics 
and failures. 

Many economists are in the habit of calling the notes of 
the private banks in the United States before 1838, as well 
as the English notes before 1844, free notes, simply because 
the State supervision was not so absolute as is now general 
in the case of private note-issuing banks all the world over. 
But to convince themselves that such supervision as existed 
was sufficient to give the notes of the above-mentioned 
broken banks a coin-nature, they need only examine the 
methods under which the notes were issued and the manner 
in which the notes circulated. Such an examination will 
show that the notes were issued, not by any methods a free 
note-issuing bank is compelled to use, but by methods 
peculiar to deposit banks and money-lending establishments ; 
also that the notes, instead of circulating exclusively in the 
natural market of the issuing bank, as free credit instruments 
would do, circulated indiscriminately all over the country 
as paper money does. 

With regard to government supervision of notes, there is 
a line somewhere at which the note changes its nature from 
a credit instrument into that of paper money. Though the 
Scotch notes before 1844 were not entirely free, the govern- 
ment supervision which had prevailed from the middle of 
the eighteenth century had not reached that differentiating 
line, while in England, before 1844, and the United States 
before 1838, it had been exceeded. This is the simple ex- 



190 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

planation of the phenomenon which has so much puzzled our 
economists, and which drove John Stuart Mill to the des- 
perate conclusion that free note-issuing is very good north of 
the Tweed, but very bad south of it. 

The prejudice, largely supported by misconception and 
spurious economy, which prevails against rational banking is 
one of the strongest of all the prejudices that have tormented 
humanity. Without it every civilised country would now 
be enjoying a normal prosperity which legislative mistakes 
and government interference would be incapable of suppres- 
sing. For the advantages of having an unrestricted number 
of banks capable of creating all the credit instruments re- 
quired by their districts, to the full capacity of the produc- 
tive trades, are so conspicuous that the most superficial 
reasoner cannot fail to perceive them. Prejudice alone 
stands in the way of the practical application of Free Trade 
in Capital and Credit. 

The fact that free note-issuing has worked in Scotland to 
perfection for 150 years without a single failure or evil 
consequence has been of no avail ; the fact that the same can 
be said of several Swiss banks, once free now supervised, has 
been of no avail ; the fact that every credit instrument that 
has been left free has proved eminently useful and eminently 
safe has been of no avail ; the fact that endless troubles, 
misery and poverty have resulted in every country where the 
government has interfered with bank-notes has been of no 
avail ; and the fact that no argument in favour of State super- 
vised notes and no argument against free notes can be cited 
has been of no avail. 

Though both experience and reason thus show that there 
is less probability of a free note-issuing bank actually failing 
than any other bank or commercial establishment, such an 
eventuality should, however, not be considered impossible. 



SUPPLY OF CAPITAL TO LABOUR 191 

But should it happen, there would be very little loss for the 
holders of the notes. The amount of capital owing by the 
public to the bank is sure to be considerably larger than the 
amount of capital owing by the bank to the public for the 
notes. Should, therefore, a free note-issuing bank stop pay- 
ment, all those who owe the bank balances of cash credit 
accounts would be able, and, against a slight discount, quite 
willing, to cash the notes of the bank up to the full amount 
of their debt to the bank. 

Thus, under a free system the debtors and the creditors in 
each district would be, to the full extent of the note circula- 
tion of the banks, the same class of people, and even actually 
the same people in a great number of cases. With deposit 
banks this happy interdependence does not exist, the debtors 
of a deposit bank being quite different people and quite a 
different class of people from the creditors. Consequently 
at the very first sign of a panic every client would put the 
utmost pressure on the bank, and the bank would put the 
utmost pressure on every debtor. It is this lack of solidarity 
and this universal pressure which is so dangerous a feature 
in our centralisation system, and which constantly renders 
the commerce of the country liable to a general panic should 
only one of our large banks fail. 

The question of bank reform belongs to that class of 
subjects which, rightly or wrongly, are considered abstruse, 
and are consequently shunned by the public and the press. 
But the question of Free Trade in Capital and Credit versus 
Bank Monopoly has for several years been before a con- 
siderable number of experts in political economy and finance. 
Though during all this time no one has been able to raise 
one single valid objection against this essential application 
of the Free Trade principle, and no one has been either able 
or else willing to say a single word in favour of our present 



192 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

system, none of the political parties have seen their way 
to place Bank Reform on their programme. The reason of 
course is that the subject could not well be made a party 
question, because it would not further one class at the 
expense of another but would benefit every Britisher equally, 
because it would rouse none of those passions which so 
facilitate party agitations, but especially because it is 
essentially an Individualistic measure which would clash with 
the Socialistic leanings of all now existing parties. When, 
however, an Individualistic party is formed in the United 
Kingdom, Free Trade in Capital and Credit will be one of 
the first measures on its programme. 



VII 

FREE TRADE IN DRINK 

In face of the tremendous strides which the intemperate 
views of the so-called Temperance Party have during the 
last few years made in this country, it might seem a quixotic 
venture, dangerous to the cause of Individualism, to break a 
lance in favour of that freedom in drink which we yet retain 
in the matter of food. While it cannot be denied that the 
proposal to make the trade in drink as free as the trade in 
other commodities might amaze that great majority of 
Britishers who have drifted into the habit of gauging a re- 
form, not by its true utility but by the extent to which it is 
favoured by public opinion, it is on the other hand a fact 
that the very climax of a public delusion generally produces 
a healthy reaction. While, therefore, the question of com- 
pulsory sobriety may have reached the proverbial stage of 
being ripe for practical legislation, the authors of this work 
believe that the excessive claims of the teetotallers have 
ripened a great many minds for the powerful arguments 
which can be advanced in favour of the sacred cause of 
liberty even in the domain of drink. 

The restrictions and regulations to which the traffic in 
drink in this country has been subjected are the work of 
legislators who, when they legislate for the working-classes, 
are apt to forget that human nature is the same in the peer 
as in the peasant. These pseudo-aristocrats do not speak of 



194 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

the people as c we ' but as ' they.' We never hear a supporter 
of Local Option say that public-houses are too great a 
temptation for him ; that he, himself, is apt to get drunk 
when spirits are put in his way ; or that his sense of self- 
respect and his will are weak enough to require government 
to defend him against himself. No ! All these moral 
defects are in others, not in him. He does not want the 
restriction for himself, but for his inferior fellow-men with 
whom he does not desire to be confounded. 

The Drink Question would be approached with less 
passion and fanaticism if the friends of sobriety would 
recommend such official restrictions as they deem necessary 
for themselves. 

The excuse of the rank and file among the prohibitionists 
is that for at least during the last forty years the teetotal 
movement has spread in virtue of the most audacious mis- 
statements and the most illogical conclusions. A set of 
ready-made opinions have been handed down from one man 
to another without the slightest inquiry and with any 
amount of appeal to sentiment. We have had ample 
confirmation of the fact that if a fallacy be only stated 
loudly enough, and often enough, it will attract a following. 

If a temperance advocate were asked to indicate the chief 
cause of poverty, bad living, miserable homes, low morals 
and absence of thrift, his mind would not for a second dwell 
on such powerful and irresistible causes of human misery as 
we have laid bare in this work, but he would unhesitatingly 
repeat the parrot-cry picked up from others, 6 Drink is the 
cause."* How utterly wrong his rash conclusion would be, 
will become evident when we have shown that drink, instead 
of being the cause, is the consequence of poverty, bad living, 
miserable homes, low morals, and absence of thrift. 

Whoever has been in personal contact with both the 



FREE TRADE IN DRINK 195 

successful and the unsuccessful among our working-classes 
will at once recognise how strong an inducement to intoxi- 
tion misery constitutes. That here and there a weak- 
minded man takes to drink without being goaded to it by 
misery does not disprove the strong temptation to drink 
which misery involves. The successful man who takes to 
drink is the exception ; the masses driven to drink through 
misery are the rule. It is, however, a fact that men who 
become drunkards without any special trouble on their minds 
or any special worry in their lives are more often to be 
found among the working-classes than among the other 
classes. The reason of this is that, as we shall show further 
on, our licensing system constitutes as strong an impelling 
mechanism for the production of drunkenness as could be 
possibly devised. 

What we have said about the tendency of trouble and 
worry to drive a man to drink holds good in every class, and 
the sad cases we meet with among highly educated men and 
women can generally be traced to some such cause, working 
collaterally with our unfortunate licensing system and the 
peculiar views it fosters. 

If we set aside such cases of drunkenness among the upper 
classes as are the result of trouble and worry, and those pro- 
duced by our system in the way to be presently described, 
it may be fairly said that sobriety now reigns among the 
upper and the middle classes. This fact will become more 
patent when we consider that a generation or two ago 
excessive drinking was one of the characteristics of the 
English upper classes. The change in this respect has 
not been sudden but gradual, and is still progressing. This 
increase of sobriety cannot be attributed to the efforts of 
the total-abstaining associations, because it had set in before 
the so-called temperance movement had acquired any hold 



196 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

on the people, and it is a well-known fact that only a small 
number of the upper classes have taken the pledge. How is 
it, then, that the curse of drink has fallen so heavily on the 
working-classes ? There can be only one explanation : The 
deplorable surroundings of the working-man, and the de- 
moralising effect of insufficient earnings, drive him to the 
public-house. Sober and prosperous men have confessed 
that while they feel no actual inclination to indulge in 
strong drinks, such a change in their circumstances as would 
place them in the position of a be-sweated workman might 
tempt them to seek solace in intoxication. 

Among those who would condemn working-men to loss of 
freedom, and to strict supervision because they yield to the 
demon of drink, we frequently find men and women who 
enjoy to the full all the advantages of wealth. These 
harsh judges live in comfortable and cheerful homes, 
surrounded by friends. They have their books and 
periodicals within reach. They have their agreeable 
parties, concerts, and theatres, and frequent opportunities 
of travel. It is probably impossible for men and women 
who thus have every moment of their lives interestingly 
occupied, whose minds are constantly receiving delightful 
impressions and whose existence is a round of excitement, 
to imagine what it would be to live a monotonous life in a 
cramped home, often badly kept, in a dull narrow street or 
a dirty alley, compelled to concentrate their minds on pinch- 
ing and self-denial. What would be their state of mind if 
they had to live from hand to mouth with utter destitution 
staring them in the face, with no other prospect for old age 
than that of the workhouse ? How would they preserve their 
courage, their cheerfulness, their self-reliance, if they found 
themselves unable to help and sustain dependent relations ? 
Would not many of them who now condemn working-men 



FREE TRADE IN DRINK 197 

fly to the same agency as they do in order to dull their feel- 
ings, to momentarily raise their hopes and to satisfy their 
craving for excitement ? The lives led by men and women 
of rank and fashion, who by reverse of fortune have been 
forced to migrate into the slums of poverty, prove that they 
often fall victims to the only source of excitement open to 
them — the gin palace. 

To look upon drink as the cause of misery in the midst of 
innumerable examples confirming the very opposite view — 
namely, that misery is the cause of drunkenness, — is a curious 
confusion of cause and effect to which the whole body of 
temperance agitators must plead guilty. Their mistake 
has led them to waste a fabulous amount of energy and 
money in combating the effects while they have left the 
cause untouched. Had they used their power in attacking 
the cause, instead of the effects, they would by now have 
achieved a splendid result. 

Economic misery, in itself so potent an incentive to drink, 
is in this country largely assisted in its demoralising influence 
by the Licensing Laws. The publican who has a licence 
possesses an actual monopoly in the district where he carries 
on his trade. In the large thoroughfares of our big cities 
there are many public-houses within a narrow radius. But, 
generally, these establishments are dotted all over our towns 
and villages in such a way as to give each of them a special 
neighbourhood from which they may draw their customers. 
As a rule it is very difficult to obtain a new licence in a 
district where a public-house is already established, and 
most publicans are fairly safe from competition. The 
actual monopoly which the publican thus possesses has set 
its stamp on everything connected with the trade — the 
house, the arrangements, the attendants, the goods and the 
methods of management. 



198 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

The object of the publican, besides making money, is 
naturally not to study the comfort, the ethics, or the health 
of his customers, but to comply strictly with the police 
regulations in order not to jeopardise his licence and his 
monopoly. The exterior of the public-house is one mass of 
colour, gildings, plate-glass and lamps, standing out con- 
spicuously from its surroundings of dull, dark streets. But 
any anticipation of cheering comfort which the inexperi- 
enced customer might entertain is forthwith dispelled when 
he enters. All the comforts have been bestowed upon the 
publican and his attendants. To them have been allotted 
the most spacious and the best part of the room. They 
have a fire-place, often a carpet, besides a snug parlour at 
the back. The unfortunate customers, on the contrary, are 
shut out from all this by a high zinc-covered counter, and 
are allowed only small standing-room between the counter 
and a draughty swinging-door. The floor is often dirty and 
no seats are supplied. Tables are out of the question, and 
often a barrel is used as a substitute. In this narrow, un- 
comfortable, wet and cheerless place the customers, and 
especially the working-class customers, are obliged to stand 
while they take their refreshments. There is of course an 
object in this arrangement, and it is to encourage a constant 
relay of comers. There is little inducement to linger, and 
so soon as a man has finished his glass, he feels that he is in 
the way, or he is bluntly asked what he will take next. In 
this way his feelings are worked upon to induce him either 
to leave or renew his order. 

While a continental working man takes his refreshment at 
his ease, seated in a comfortable chair, with a small table all 
to himself or his friends, attended by a smart waiter, with 
access to a goodly supply of newspapers, the British working 
man has to take his refreshment at an exorbitant price at 



FREE TRADE IN DRINK 199 

the sloppy zinc counter, and is there treated like an animal 
drinking from a trough. 

The results of this system can only be what they are. 
The glaring public-house is in the great majority of cases 
the only bright spot in a dreary neighbourhood, the only 
place where a working man can have refreshments, where he 
can meet his equals, where he can gratify his cravings for 
sociability, where he can discuss the topics of the day, and 
have a break in the monotony of his daily existence. 

This especially applies to the young unmarried men who 
live in cramped lodgings, who feel themselves in the way in 
their crowded home. The working man who yields to the 
allurements of the public-house is apt to get his best feelings 
blunted. The whole atmosphere of the place, the way he is 
served, the noxious stuff he often consumes, the loose char- 
acters he mingles with, all tend to lower his self-respect. If 
he lingers because he has nowhere else to go, because the 
weather is rainy or foggy, or because he desires to meet a 
friend, he is often induced to take more drink than is good 
for him. In few public-houses can he obtain coffee, tea, 
cocoa, or food, and if he stands in need of sustenance, he 
must take the intoxicants which the house provides. 

If a group of friends wish for non-intoxicants, while one 
of them prefers beer or spirits, the probability is that they 
all adjourn to the public-house, though there be a temper- 
ance place in the neighbourhood. As a rule, however, the 
refusal of licences — the liberty of selling beer, wine or spirits 
in any form — makes it impossible for the competitors of the 
public-house to exist. In country places and pleasure resorts 
the public-houses often reign supreme, and tourists and holi- 
day-makers — including respectable women and young girls — 
are attracted to their counters. 

One of the worst effects of the monopoly system, and the 



200 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

absence of free competition which it involves, is the whole- 
sale adulteration and poisoning which generally flourish in 
proportion to the poverty of the district. Here, again, 
we see a glaring injustice to the working man, who has to 
compete with the whole world in the earning of his scant 
wages, but is deprived of the advantages which he should 
have from the competition among the suppliers of such drink 
as he requires. 

But there are instances of injustice still more glaring. A 
working man feels the need of a glass of beer or spirits. He 
has not much choice, but repairs to the house of the mono- 
polist, where he is supplied with a horrible decoction, instead 
of wholesome beer or pure spirits. The poison inflames his 
brain, deadens his senses, and creates a burning thirst for 
more. Half unconsciously he continues to drink until he is 
as irresponsible as a madman. He meets another man in 
the same state. A quarrel ensues, blows are exchanged, and 
a life is taken. So-called j ustice arrests, tries and condemns 
to death the man who sought for a glass of beer. What a 
terrible parody of justice ! For, who is the real culprit ? 
Certainly not the man who was rendered mad, and whom 
the judge condemned. 

The publican, whom popular opinion would condemn, has 
the excuse that he did not aim at poisoning the man, but 
simply at earning his rent, his taxes, the price of his mono- 
poly and his livelihood. We fear very much that a great 
number of crimes of this kind must be laid at the door of 
those who uphold monopoly in the supply of drink — and 
who ought to know the inevitable results it produces. 

In a country like ours, where each man is supposed to be 
a free agent, there is only one way of checking adulteration, 
and that is through free competition. Only in a completely 
Socialistic country, where the government itself would supply 



FREE TRADE IN DRINK 201 

the drink — and where the drinkers would be complete slaves 
— could adulteration be prevented by government. But so 
long as the competition to obtain drink is free, only free 
competition in the supply can protect the consumer. 

The protection which the government affords the con- 
sumer in this country is simply a farce. Here, as in all 
countries where the State pretends to undertake the fatherly 
duty of preventing adulteration, the adulterators are alone 
benefited by it. It cannot be otherwise, for the childlike 
trust which the people as a rule place in government inspec- 
tion causes them to neglect all inspection on their own 
account. Instead of being inspected by a million-eyed pub- 
lic, the adulterator is watched only by the inspector, who 
may never come in his way, or who may be hoodwinked or 
bribed. 

The wholesale and impudent adulteration of milk, for 
example, illustrates the futility of our inspection system. If 
no official inspection of milk existed, the adulterating dairy- 
man would not flourish to the extent he does now. His 
customers, knowing that they themselves have to look to the 
quality of the milk, would only deal with the dairyman 
whose reputation for honesty had been established by experi- 
ence ; or they would assume the habit of dropping the milk- 
tester from time to time into their daily supply. 

Under a free system it would be always open to the con- 
sumer to make a contract with his supplier, to the effect that 
all goods supplied should be pure and unadulterated under 
as heavy a penalty as competition would compel. The pre- 
sent system of inspection is only a dodging game between 
the inspector and the adulterator, and when the latter is 
found out, the penalty represents only a small percentage on 
the profits of his systematic adulteration. 

The greatest defect of the inspection system is that 



202 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

the ever-growing army of inspectors has no responsibility. 
People are systematically poisoned through adulterations, 
their income is pilfered by short weights, they are attacked 
by diseases caused by badly drained and ill-constructed 
houses, and when they discover how thoroughly they have 
been deluded, their only remedy is to enter upon an expen- 
sive lawsuit against the author of their misfortunes. 

But the inspectors, who should have been inspecting, and 
whose presence has thrown the dupes off their guard, always 
go scot-free. We have inspectors of mines taking the 
responsibility off the shoulders of the miners themselves, but 
who ever heard of an inspector being hanged for murder, or 
imprisoned for manslaughter, when his defective inspection 
has caused hundreds of dupes of the system to lose their 
lives in an explosion ? We have inspectors of theatres and 
public places, but who ever heard them even blamed when, 
through the most absurd arrangement of doors and stair- 
cases, hundreds of men, women, and often children, are sacri- 
ficed in a panic ? There are places of public entertainment 
at this moment in the country which might prove awful 
death-traps, in case of a panic during a full attendance, but 
when the catastrophes come, as come they will, those inspec- 
tors, and nominators of inspectors, who by sham security 
have lured the people to their destruction, will manage to 
escape completely any evil consequences to themselves of a 
sham responsibility so recklessly assumed. The fact is that 
to appoint an inspector without responsibility means simply 
to take away responsibility from proprietors, managers, and 
all others concerned, rendering nobody responsible. 

The appointment of government inspectors of intoxicants 
removes the responsibility from the publican, and lulls the 
suspicion of the consumer. What wonder, then, that the 
publican should abuse the monopoly he holds and increase 



FREE TRADE IN DRINK 203 

his profits by means of adulteration. Under a system of 
free competition, adulteration would spell ruin to the retailer, 
and he might be compelled, in order to allay the suspicion of 
his customers, to hang up in his bar a signed and sealed 
engagement to compensate by a heavy sum of money any- 
body served with adulterated liquor. There can be little 
doubt that the present Monopoly system enormously encour- 
ages adulteration, and, therefore, exercises a most unhealthy 
influence, especially on the working classes. 

Under a free system many checks would come into opera- 
tion which at present do not act at all. Thus, for instance, 
the wholesale producer of good qualities would exercise, in 
his own interest, no slight control over the retailers. These 
would, actuated by competition, describe their wares as being 
of such and such a brand, and the proprietor of good brands 
would naturally take steps to prevent the retailers from sell- 
ing adulterated stuff as his products. Under a free system 
the popular control would prevent the retailer from escaping 
from the consequences of his adulterations as easily as he 
does now. Elaborate legislation has been resorted to in 
order to prevent the publican from diluting his spirits with 
water, but as it would be utterly irrational, especially from 
a prohibitionist point of view, to compel the public to drink 
strong spirits when they wish for weak ones, it has been 
found necessary to allow the sale of weak drinks, on condi- 
tion that the retailer announces on a placard in his bar that 
he sells diluted spirits. By simply placing such a placard 
on his wall, mine host is perfectly free to water his spirits as 
much as he likes, and his customers, well aware of the annoy- 
ances that might result from government inspection, believe 
him implicitly when he declares that the law makes no differ- 
ence to his honesty, and that the placard has been hung on the 
wall simply in order to keep the inspector out of the place. 



204 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

Opponents to Free Trade in Drink, labouring under the 
delusion that the presence of public-houses is the cause 
of drunkenness, and ignoring the patent fact that much 
drunkenness is the cause of the public-houses, endeavour to 
prove their case by asserting that each public-house consti- 
tutes a separate temptation against which the citizens ought 
to be protected. Without this feeble reasoning they could 
not point to any cause why two small public-houses in one 
street would produce more drunkenness than one large 
palatial place, capable of holding ten times as many people 
as the two small ones. 

Nothing has been more common during the last twenty 
years, when political programmes have had to be popular at 
whatever cost, than to introduce either suddenly or surrepti- 
tiously fallacious principles in order to bring about nolens 
volens some pettifogging paternal supervision. Thus, in order 
to gratify prejudices in connection with the Drink Question, 
our teetotallers have induced Parliament to undertake the 
protection of the citizens against the temptation of strong 
drinks. Parliament has taken this step without at all con- 
sidering whether protection against temptations in general 
ought to be its duty, or, if it ought to be so, how it could 
be best and most systematically fulfilled. 

The idea of the government^ a free country attempting to 
protect the citizen from temptation is so preposterous that, 
if it had been abstractedly suggested in Parliament, it would 
not have secured one single supporter. Of all the teachings 
humanity has derived from experience there is none more 
generally acknowledged than that it is impossible for any 
government to protect any human being from temptation 
unless the protected individual is a complete slave. Experi- 
ence has also amply demonstrated that to shield any indi- 
viduals, or any class, from temptation is to render them 



FREE TRADE IN DRINK 205 

weak-minded and unfit to maintain themselves as responsible 
beings. Let every man look back on his individual life and 
he will find that such of his early friends and comrades who 
in their youth have by care or compulsion been the most 
screened from temptation have invariably shown far less 
character and self-control than those who from an early age 
have been taught to rely upon themselves. 

If we regard nations, instead of individuals, we find that 
only those peoples who have developed in freedom, un- 
screened from the fierce blast of temptation, have risen to 
national independence, prosperity, and power. We find 
that every nation and every race which for any length of 
time have been cosseted by some paternal government, by 
some worldly or spiritual authority, or by some other 
nationality, have lost the best qualities of manliness and 
self-reliance. Were there any virtue in the reasoning of our 
teetotallers and prohibitionists, what would become of a 
nation that was to act up to it, and how should we regard 
that love of liberty which from the earliest times has been 
so powerful a factor in all human development, and for 
which the best individuals of so many splendid races have 
been ready to yield up their lives ? 

But, to descend to the narrow and unreasoned tactics of 
expediency of which our Temperance Reformers are guilty, 
let us examine whether the temptations to intoxication are 
those which ought to be removed in the first place by a 
Parliament which imagines itself to be the protector of 
people against their own weakness. 

If a man is induced to enter a public-house, it by no 
means follows that he will intoxicate himself. As a matter 
of fact a very small percentage of public-house frequenters 
do. If a man should get intoxicated, would it necessarily 
follow that he would be ruined for life and become a burden 



206 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

on society? By no means. Millions of men, and some 
great and highly useful men, have been intoxicated. Con- 
sequently, the chances of a man being ruined by entering a 
public-house are extremely remote. 

If there were method in the madness of the teetotallers, 
on the other hand, might not they espy far greater danger 
in other temptations ? The drapers'* shop windows, crowded 
with articles which exercise a powerful fascination over the 
feminine mind, to them surely ought to be a form of public 
temptation which should be abolished before the public- 
house. Might not such displays of luxury tempt the wives 
and daughters of the struggling man to indulge in expenses 
that often blight the happiness of the home ? Have not 
these tasteful fineries tempted thousands of innocent, hard- 
worked, and half-starved young girls to barter away their 
bodies and their souls ? Does not the passion for dress, indeed, 
populate our prisons with women convicted of shop-lifting ? 

Take again the displays of the sweet-shops. How power- 
fully they must tempt small children to steal the pennies 
which alone can procure them the alluring ' goodies ' ! And 
what have our protectors against temptations to say about 
the operation of the penny banks in the schools encouraging 
the deposit of pennies by youngsters who have no income ? 

If temptations are to be removed by Act of Parliament, 
would there not be every reason to prohibit luxuries among 
young men only too apt to drift into indebtedness; to 
prevent sport, in order to prevent betting; to confiscate 
pictures, stationery, and books capable of influencing youth- 
ful imaginations ; to compel reform in ladies' evening dress ; 
to close all ball-rooms ; to forbid all social intercourse 
among men and women; and to allow no women in the 
street unless veiled in the Oriental fashion ? 

If exact statistics were obtainable, showing the number of 



FREE TRADE IN DRINK 207 

people who have come to grief by yielding to the attractions 
of the public-house, and of those who have fallen victims to 
each of the above-mentioned forms of temptation, it would 
probably be found that the allurements of the drinking-bars 
are not among those which, through the number of their 
victims, call the loudest for the intervention of a prag- 
matical and paternal government. 

By going back to first principles, and by taking a broad 
and comprehensive survey of the whole question, it becomes 
evident how impossible it is to render people virtuous and 
sober by screening them from temptation ; and also that, if 
it could be done, how utterly humanity would be degraded 
by the process. But our teetotallers do not go back to first 
principles, and do not take a comprehensive view of the 
question. Restive under reasoning, they hasten to assume 
what they should prove, so that they may plunge into that 
atmosphere of sentimentality, declamation and frenzy, so 
congenial to all minds of a fanatical turn. 

It has been noted that Englishmen, who have visited the 
Continent, hardly ever describe our public-houses as temp- 
tations. The reason is that, compared as to attractiveness 
with refreshment places in many of the continental countries, 
the great majority of English public-houses positively appear 
to be deterrents from, rather than allurements to, drink. On 
the Continent one meets with public places of refreshment 
where no entrance fee is charged, but where every form of 
luxury is to be found : large and lofty rooms, well uphol- 
stered furniture, gorgeous decorations, good attendance, 
spacious verandahs, luxuriant gardens, brilliant illumina- 
tions, and high-class music. When to these are added 
refreshments and cigars at about a quarter of the price the 
English would have to pay at home, it might be reasonable 
to describe such places as inviting. 



208 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

But what is the effect on the people who are ruthlessly 
exposed to such allurements ? Thousands of Englishmen 
who have frequented such places can tell us that they are 
filled with a decent, orderly public, drawn from a great 
variety of classes ; that families taking their tea, and men 
enjoying their beer, their grog or their punch, elbow one 
another in perfect harmony; that when the closing hour 
arrives all leave the place apparently as sober as when they 
arrived. 

How, then, can we reconcile the two facts, that highly 
attractive places seem to constitute a lesser temptation than 
the repulsive public-houses in England ? The explanation is 
simple enough. The English public-houses, in themselves, 
would be no temptation ; but our monopoly system and the 
consequent absence of free competition in the supply of 
refreshments, as well as of public amusements, renders the 
English public-house not only an attraction to the working- 
man, but a death-trap to his body and his soul. 

The gratuitous supposition of the Local Optionists, so 
indispensable to their methods of reasoning, that a man will 
drink in proportion to his opportunity of doing so is entirely 
disproved by experience. On the contrary, a reference to 
actualities shows that the greater the opportunities of drinking 
the less are they used. To any one who has studied human 
nature this is not surprising. A man who has been carefully 
shielded from temptation, who is used to rely on artificial pro- 
tections and barriers, and who has had little opportunity of 
developing the strength of his mind, will naturally be an easy 
victim to the first temptation that comes in his way. The 
man, and still more the woman and the child, who have been 
forcibly kept from the enjoyment of certain forms of food, 
drink or pastimes, are sure to develop an abnormal longing 
for them, and would count it sport to break arbitrary regu- 



■«— 



FREE TRADE IN DRINK 209 

lations not founded on religious precepts or on the natural 
moral laws. 

It is a well-known fact that the majority of workmen 
employed in large breweries are sober men, though their 
allowance of beer is on a liberal scale. In Bordeaux and 
other centres of the wine trade, the population is remarkable 
for its sobriety, though the majority of the working-classes 
are engaged the whole day in the wine-cellars and ware- 
houses where they have free access to the best wines pro- 
duced. It has been noticed that when French regiments 
exchange garrisons, those from the north going to the south 
and vice versa, and the regiment which is moved from a pro- 
vince where wine is dear, bad and scarce, and where the men 
have been somewhat addicted to drunkenness, is quartered 
in a southern wine-growing district, they are prone to 
intoxicate themselves for the first week or two, but after- 
wards become as temperate as the local people themselves. 
On the other hand, when a sober regiment from the south is 
quartered in the north, where wine is a luxury, the men remain 
strictly sober for the first week or two, but afterwards become 
as prone to indulge in beer and spirits as their predecessors. 
This phenomenon cannot be traced to the climate, as people 
moving from the southern wine districts to the north, with 
sufficient means to remain uninfluenced by the price of wine, 
feel not the slightest inclination to abandon their sober habits. 
The city of Paris was once remarkable for the sobriety of 
its working-classes, when wines and brandies were cheap. 
Now that the oedium~and the phylloxera have enormously 
reduced the wine crop in France, since the whole world has 
taken to drinking French wines, and since the excise duties 
on wines and spirits entering Paris have been raised, these 
luxuries are dear in that city, and drunkenness has developed 
to a deplorable extent. 



210 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

In the United States, before the American people had lost 
their faith in liberty, and before the American Government 
had begun its long series of financial and economic blunders, 
the manufacture of spirits was free from Excise Duty, and 
alcohol was consequently good and cheap. Spirits were 
largely produced and largely consumed, not in the shape 
of drink, but for household and industrial purposes, such 
as cleaning, burning, etc., to the great comfort of the 
Americans. But, since a heavy Excise Duty has been 
imposed on spirits, drunkenness has been on the increase in 
the United States. 

Similar examples from reality can be quoted ad infinitum 
in refutation of the fallacious assumption that easy access 
to wines and spirits tends to increase the insobriety of a 
people. 

Even were there no experience to go by, any logical man, 
asked whether the suppression of public-houses would 
diminish or increase drunkenness in the country, would cer- 
tainly reply that such suppression would result in home 
drinking, and secret dram-shops of the worst description. 
And so it would no doubt be. In houses where now not a 
drop of spirit is to be found, a stock of spirits would have to 
be stored, unless strict teetotal principles prevailed among 
the householders and all their friends. The public sympathy 
would be with the illicit sellers of drinks, and, in view of the 
sporting proclivities of Englishmen, the official obstacles 
thrown in the way of the traffic in spirits would enormously 
add zest to the acquisition and consumption of intoxicants. 

Already such diminution in the number of public-houses, 
and such regulations as have been enforced regarding hours, 
etc., have resulted in a crop of private clubs. These places 
are in a great majority of cases more demoralising than any 
open house could possibly be. They are accessible at all 



FREE TRADE IN DRINK 211 

hours of the day and night, and in many of them not only 
drinking, but singing, gambling and ballet- dancing go on 
at all hours, and even on Sunday forenoons. 

The cry from the teetotal camp now is of course that 
Parliament must legislate against clubs ; but if it does, the 
result will naturally be that if the law succeeds in closing the 
clubs, the spirit of revolt which created them will manifest 
itself in even more private localities, and only when every 
house is inspected and every man and woman shadowed will 
the teetotaller's millennium be possible. 

The so-called Temperance Party has arrived at their 
extraordinary belief in the power of Parliament to render 
people sober and virtuous by the following process of 
fallacious reasoning : People become poor, miserable and 
thriftless, because they drink. They drink because the 
public-houses give them an opportunity of doing so. If they 
did not go to the public-houses, they would keep sober, and 
if they kept sober, they would thrive and be happy. 

This reasoning is illogical and superficial in the extreme. 
For a man to drink himself into misery is the exception, and 
for a man to get drunk because he is miserable is the rule. 
Men who have the best opportunity of drinking do not get 
drunk, but the more drink is withheld from people the more 
they want it. The public-houses do not alone supply oppor- 
tunities of drinking, and their suppression would cause more 
numerous and more dangerous opportunities for intoxication. 

The fact is, that the advocates of compulsory temperance 
have long ago lost sight of the real aim of legislation and 
social institutions in a free nation. This aim is not to cause 
the multiplication of a weak-minded race incapable of any 
temptation-proof virtue, unable to depend on itself, capable 
of continuing in national existence only through artificial 
support, authoritative protection, and constant supervision. 



212 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

Such is, however, the aim of our prohibitionists, and it 
can only be attained through a complete national decadence. 
A people made up of lifelong minors, of overgrown children, 
would have to yield up their national independence to a 
stronger nation perhaps after no more resistance than the 
mighty China has offered to tiny Japan. Should the whole 
world be placed under the influence of teetotal principles, 
the scheme of humanity would be reversed, and coming 
evolutions in harmony with them would bring our race back 
towards the level of the monkey. 

The aim to strive for should not be to prevent a certain 
amount of alcohol from going down a certain number of 
throats, but to render British citizens strong-minded, self- 
reliant, free men, well able to resist temptation and to live a 
healthy, virtuous life, not by outside compulsion, but by 
free choice. 

Both logic and experience lead to the conclusion that, in 
order to give our people such strength of mind, such self- 
control, and such manhood as alone can protect them against 
the vice of drunkenness, we must cease to interfere with the 
liquor traffic. Free Trade in Drink must be an item in the 
programme of a truly Patriot Party. But it should be borne 
in mind that the transition from an old-world system of 
supervision to a rational free system should be accomplished 
in a wise and prudent manner, if the operation is to be per- 
formed without a severe crisis. To make the retail trade in 
drinks free to-morrow, while spirits are still considered a 
treat, while they are dear and adulterated, while salted beers 
are sold as thirst-quenchers, while decent cafes and other 
places of refreshment for the working classes are non-existent, 
while the monopoly in public amusements is maintained, 
while monopoly in banking keeps wages at starvation point, 
while the protective system closes our colonial markets, while 



FREE TRADE IN DRINK 213 

the people are not fully awakened from the mental lethargy 
in which paternal government and fussy officialism has 
enwrapped them — to suddenly institute free competition in 
the supply of drinks would be to create a temporary satur- 
nalia until the benefit of the free principle had had time 
to assert itself and moderation had been instilled by the 
process of painful experience. 

The transition from our present licensing system to com- 
plete liberty would, in any case, be marked by a temporary 
increase in drunkenness, but by allowing this reform to be 
preceded by other reforms in the direction of freedom, and by 
gradually removing State-meddling with the drink traffic, 
complete Free Trade in Drink might be attained at the 
temporary sacrifice of artificial sobriety which would be well 
worth the final great aim — namely, sobriety based on strength 
of character and not on official so-called safeguards. 

In the meantime a coming Individualist party should exert 
itself to prevent any further restrictions and weak paternal 
measures. The public should, if possible, be taught to con- 
consider the Drink Question in a rational manner — to aim 
at, not social tyranny over their neighbours, but at liberty 
for themselves. Any municipal or private step taken with 
the view of diminishing the drink nuisance should be deter- 
mined, not by the desire to prevent the consumption of 
intoxicants, but by the desire to diminish the interference 
with sober people's freedom on the part of drink-retailers or 
drunkards. 

It should be remembered that the objections now raised 
against public-houses in respectable neighbourhoods arise 
largely from the interference with our liberty to which we 
are unfortunately so well trained to submit. The street 
noises, produced by loud talk, singing, wrangling, shouting 
and screaming, inside and outside taverns, constitute most 



214 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

serious infractions on the liberty of all the people of a neigh- 
bourhood, which should not be tolerated in a free country. 
It is lazy-mindedness, want of energy, and want of principle 
that have induced our forefathers rather to abolish the 
public-house than to punish such infractions of personal 
liberty as disturbances and noises in public places emanating 
from public-houses and many other causes. Very little is to 
be gained by freeing us from such disturbances as arise from 
public-houses, if we are to be kept awake throughout the 
night and early morning by roysterers, concertina-playing 
revellers, municipal watering-carts, can-rattling milkmen, 
howling sweeps, and bellowing coal-salesmen and costers. 

Our idea of personal liberty has indeed become so confused 
that thousands of tired citizens and hundreds of suffering 
invalids tamely submit to a continuous torture of so refined 
and exasperating a cruelty as the prevention of sleep by a 
small number of tyrants. So little do we respect individual 
freedom as to attack only one cause of our sufferings — the 
public-house — and as to do this, not in the name of liberty but 
by tyrannising over others as others tyrannise over us. There 
can be no objection to any public-houses conducted, as they 
all could be, with perfect respect for the liberty of the people 
in the neighbourhood. , At least the objections would be 
incomparably smaller than those we should raise — if we 
understood the value of liberty — against barking dogs, 
crowing cocks, screeching cats, and the discordant pianos of 
our neighbours. 

One reason for suppressing public-houses is that they 
increase drunkenness and cause drunkards to become a 
burden on the parish. The weakness of such reasoning has 
already been exposed, but if, for the sake of argument, we 
supposed that each tavern created a certain number of hope- 
less drunkards, there are surely other ways by which to 



FREE TRADE IN DRINK 215 

protect the ratepayers than by interfering with the liberty 
of the whole neighbourhood. We now provide for the man 
who has ruined himself through drink in the same charitable 
manner that we provide for the man who has come to grief 
through generosity, honesty and undeserved misfortunes. 
There is no excuse for such a system. If a man, through 
drink, render himself a nuisance to society, he should be 
treated as such. The more degrading the punishment meted 
out to the drunkards the less would be their number; They 
might be enrolled in a disciplined corps and employed in the 
more disagreeable branches of municipal work, or if too 
numerous to be absorbed in this way, they might be placed 
on farm-colonies similar to the Dutch beggar-colonies, where 
they should be made to live cheap enough and work hard 
enough to render such colonies self-supporting. Such severe 
treatment will no doubt be deprecated by those who them- 
selves have felt the power of the drink demon, or who have 
friends apt to yield to him. But the reply to these is that 
a degrading punishment inflicted on drunkenness is for the 
weak-minded man the strongest support to his efforts to keep 
sober, and that the punishment is not a revenge on the 
sinner, but an inevitable measure for the protection of 
personal liberty in general. If the drunkard can yield to his 
passion either by his own provisions, or by the assistance of 
his friends, without interfering with the liberty of others, 
there would be no occasion to curb him. 

A political party, or individual citizens, anxious to pave 
the way for better times or better principles of government, 
should endeavour to impress upon their fellow-citizens how 
absurd are our present methods against drunkards. These 
methods consist in doing violence to the liberty of the whole 
community of sober people in order that a few drunkards 
may maintain an undeserved liberty despite their vice* 



VIII 

FREE TRADE IN AMUSEMENTS 

' 1 know a very wise man that believed that, if a man were 
permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who 
should make the laws of a nation.' So said Andrew 
Fletcher of Saltoun to the Marquis of Montrose. He 
recognised how much more accessible to influence was man's 
emotional faculty than his intellectual. 

At the very beginning of the struggle of mind to over- 
come mind, from the first attempt of one human being to 
influence another, it has been recognised that man does not 
live by bread alone. The truth of the cynical aphorism that 
in order to govern you must deceive rests on the fact that 
man is more easily swayed by his emotions than by his 
interests. Priest castes of all ages have realised that 
superstitious fear alone is an insufficient means for imposing 
religious discipline, and that a successful religion must largely 
satisfy the craving for the beautiful, the pleasingly emotional, 
and the joyous sensations at the root of every human 
heart. By dint of pageantry, imposing ceremonies, alluring 
music, attractive works of art, captivating dances, the priest- 
hoods have ever strengthened their ascendancy over the 
masses and moulded the character of their followers. Stern 
and ascetic churches that have not appealed directly to the 
senses have instead held out promises of future joys and 
glories fascinating enough to render the minds of their 



FREE TRADE IN AMUSEMENTS 217 

members as plastic as the clay in the potters hands. 
Monarchs and ruling castes have recognised that to minister 
to the pleasure of the people is one of the ways by which 
power may be gained and retained. History shows that even 
when this means of ruling has been employed in a onesided 
fashion and to excess, it has failed, not from want of effective- 
ness but from lack of resources on the part of the dispensers. 

Such being the profound importance of a nation's pleasures, 
it is not surprising that those who aspire to govern the 
people should have secured the power of regulating its amuse- 
ments. Every school of sociologists — the Individualists as 
well as the Collectivists — agree that the public amusements of 
a nation should be of a pure and elevated kind. But they 
do not agree regarding the methods by which purity and 
elevation shall be attained. 

The supervision of amusements was ever one of the pre- 
rogatives that the pragmatical governments arrogated to 
themselves. Compared with the regulation of dress, luxury, 
servants' wages, and a thousand and one other matters of 
which many a government undertook the regulation, public 
amusements assumed a paramount importance. Under the 
influence of the strong impression that the government must 
necessarily better understand what is good for the people 
than the people themselves, and that the citizens would 
infallibly do something wrong if allowed to join in any 
common action whatever without the guidance and supervi- 
sion of the government to the masses, it has always seemed 
indispensable that public amusements should be under 
authoritative control. This opinion has been held by every 
cultured nation, and, despite the progress of our civilisa- 
tion, despite teachings drawn from experience, this same 
opinion still prevails. It is one of those prejudices which 
are handed down from generation to generation, and are 



218 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

accepted blindly as dogmas without any investigation what- 
soever. 

It is only fair to our race, however, to remember that 
an enormous number of incidents has appeared to confirm 
the faith in government supervision of amusements. When 
secret establishments for low pleasures or right down de- 
baucheries have been discovered they have always been 
held up as an example of what public pleasures would be 
were they not supervised by the authorities. It seems 
hardly ever to have struck anybody that the existence 
of such degrading secret places of amusement is the inevitable 
outcome of government supervision, and especially of wrong- 
headed government supervision. The sounder views which 
have prevailed regarding bodily ailments have not yet been 
extended to social evils. It is not long ago that medical 
science concentrated all its efforts upon alleviating, suppress- 
ing, and preventing symptoms of physical disorders even at 
the cost of aggravating the causes. To medical men of our 
day such a method would appear extremely absurd : for they 
well understand that it is the causes of the evil that must be 
attacked, and that only by allowing the symptoms to mani- 
fest themselves freely can they judge the nature of the 
malady and the effects of the remedies. The old methods 
violated nature, the new ones assist her. 

But with regard to social evils, the old methods prevail 
unchecked. Parliament, the County Councils, numerous 
societies, philanthropists and authors are busied in fighting 
one by one a thousand effects, while no one dreams of inquir- 
ing into the one cause from which they all spring. 

When, therefore, a tendency to degrading pleasure is dis- 
covered, it is never investigated in what relation such a 
phenomenon stands to other evil tendencies, nor what may 
be the cause of them all, but some special enactment is 



FREE TRADE IN AMUSEMENTS 219 

passed calculated to check the latest discovered harmful ten- 
dency. Original sin is considered a sufficient cause, and the 
whole of humanity being wicked — of course with the exception 
of the government and the police — no other remedy can be 
found than a violent interference on their part. 

Whether we look on the places of public amusement of 
our days, many of which we have no reason to be proud of, 
or at the public pleasures of the past, which were not only 
sanctioned, but often instigated by the authorities, such as 
bull-baiting, bear-baiting, cock-fighting, etc., we entirely fail 
to find any real confirmation of the beneficial influence of 
government supervision of public pleasures. The fact is, 
that government necessarily reflects the idea of the people 
of its time, and it, therefore, regulates the public amusements 
somewhat according to the taste of the people. If the brutal 
performances of the past are now prohibited by the govern- 
ment it is chiefly because the public taste has improved; 
and if to-day pure-minded women are freely admitted to 
performances which, fifty years ago, would have been pro- 
hibited as far too indecent for the corruptest men, it is 
because ideas about decency have changed. 

It might be difficult to prove whether such changes in public 
opinion are for the better or for the worse ; but if they are 
for the worse, it is evident that such an unhealthy develop- 
ment has not been checked by State supervision. To instance 
theatrical performances, the following has generally been the 
process of progression : The State through its officials draws 
certain lines which should not be exceeded. The very ex- 
istence of these lines produces both on the impresarios 
and on the public the impression that beyond the official 
demarcations might be found representations of greater 
attraction than those within official limit. The impresarios, 
therefore, conclude that they must go as near as they can to 



220 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

the fixed margin, and, if possible, exceed it surreptitiously or 
even boldly, in order to create a sensation. The fact that 
the performance is arranged on this principle naturally 
makes the public more eager to witness it, because it pro- 
mises to open up new fields and to establish a new privilege. 
Besides, every human being resents prohibitions and counts 
it sport to break through them. 

The officials may feel inclined to intervene on behalf of 
public morality, but in view of the fine legal points that may 
be raised, and perhaps from a fear of the enormous advertise- 
ment their interference would give to the performance, they 
hesitate. In the meantime it is found that the public is not 
so shocked as might have been expected ; a large proportion 
of the citizens and the press approve of the new development 
on artistic, literary, or other grounds ; soon the whole com- 
munity becomes used to the daring innovation, and public 
opinion about decency accommodates itself to the actuality. 
The same process is repeated each time an impresario, en- 
couraged by previous successes, feels inclined to take another 
step beyond the boundaries of the authoritative limits of 
public decency. 

Whether authoritative supervision, with regard to decency, 
accelerates or delays the progression towards greater licen- 
tiousness is, therefore, an open question. Were there not a 
host of factors at work in modern society in the promotion 
of immorality, it might be fairly asked whether the existence 
of State control over public amusements does not give 
piquancy to the laceration of the standard of the decency of 
the day; and whether impresarios, unable to fall back 
upon such an attraction, would not more earnestly give their 
minds to studying the human yearning for the beautiful and 
the elevated which underlies all progress. 

The development which spectacular performances have 



FREE TRADE IN AMUSEMENTS 221 

taken in Great Britain, in unison with the rest of the 
world, as well as the freedom modern artists assume in their 
representation of the nude, has caused deep dissatisfaction 
and even alarm among certain classes of people, who perhaps 
from being utterly out of touch with art and public enter- 
tainments, have not been influenced by the more modern 
opinions regarding decency. These people object to the 
gradual sanction by the authoritative controllers of the 
successive steps towards liberty, and make efforts from time 
to time to establish a coercive control strong enough, not 
only to prevent further advance towards freedom, but to 
force back the standard of official decency to bygone points. 
They are the coryphees of that great majority which emphati- 
cally believes in the beneficial effects of State supervision of 
public amusements. It is, therefore, important to show 
that the reasoning which underlies their attitude is entirely 
fallacious, and that the remedy they suggest — State com- 
pulsion — would inevitably lead to the very opposite of the 
result they desire. 

Their object is to further morality and decency. They 
themselves do not distinguish between the two. They take 
for granted that what is branded as indecent is necessarily 
immoral, and that anything that is not indecent is moral. 
It is hardly possible to commit a more flagrant blunder. 
What is moral or not moral, is determined by the eternal 
feeling which the Creator has implanted in the human soul, 
and can, therefore, not change. What is decent and what 
is not decent, on the contrary, is determined by a conven- 
tional opinion which changes with times, with places, with 
nations, with religion and with fashions. There was much in 
costume and habits in antiquity which was decent then but 
would not be accounted decent now. Mohammedan women 
consider it indecent to unveil their faces to male strangers, 



222 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

a view which Christian women fail to understand. The 
scanty dress of Indian servants is considered perfectly decent 
in Bombay, but would be regarded as outrageous in London. 
Bare knees are decent in a Highland dress, but would con- 
stitute a punishable offence of indecency in the same man, in 
the same street, in the case of ordinary attire. For a lady to 
receive morning callers in an incomplete dress, exposing, say, 
her arms, would be considered indecent, but at an evening 
party or at the opera she may expose her arms, her neck, 
half her back and her chest, without being thought in the 
slightest degree indecent. 

In view of these indisputable facts it is evident that to 
determine what is moral and what is immoral by the decency 
standard of the day, or perhaps of the moment, is a sure way 
of forming a wrong opinion. Our prudish school of reformers 
not only constantly commit this mistake, but, what is worse, 
their conception and definition of morality are hazy, biassed, 
and incorrect. These masqueraders in Puritan garb seem 
unaware that there is such a thing as spurious morality, 
which is very different from real morality, and they in- 
variably mistake the former for the latter. The one is a 
matter of outward show; the other is a condition of the 
human soul. 

This spurious morality, or, as we shall here call it, the 
ascetic morality, is the outcome of mediaeval misconceptions, 
fanatical but un- Christian religious views, and Church poli- 
tics. It sprang from the blasphemous supposition that God's 
Nature was utterly wicked, that morality could only be 
attained to by shunning nature, and by selfish isolation 
involving the avoidance of all social functions, duties and 
relations with the world and fellow-men — the very atmosphere 
in which true morality can alone find its application. 

The votaries of the ascetic morality of old took the 






FREE TRADE IN AMUSEMENTS 223 

teachings of the early Christian churches in a very narrow 
and a very literal sense. In order to better inculcate the 
true Christian morality — brotherhood, charity and self- 
sacrifice — the early Christian churches were prone to remind 
their members that they had an immortal soul that could be 
saved only by the fulfilment of Christian duties. But, 
gradually, the saving of their souls became, to the fanatical 
Christians, a more absorbing concern than the fulfilment of 
Christian duties to their fellow-men. Asceticism, a degenera- 
tion common to almost all religions, made its appearance, 
and, as the attention and admiration it excited assisted the 
new churches in their missionary work among the Pagans, it 
was encouraged by the leaders. However we may admire 
men who, on religious grounds, lived in lonely caverns on the 
coarsest of food, or who spent a goodly part of their lives on 
the top of a pillar, we cannot help recognising that the form 
of morality which found its highest expression in such lives 
was of an entirely different nature from that revealed in the 
words : 6 What you have done to the smallest of these, my 
brethren, ye have done it unto Me.' 

The morality of ascetics was adopted by the monasteries 
and the cloisters, and as these establishments were among 
the bulwarks of the Church of Rome, the views of their 
inmates were rather encouraged than opposed. Ascetic 
morality has ever since been more or less enjoined by almost 
all Christian churches, and has largely come to be looked 
upon as the only true form of morality. 

Its characteristics, even among the English and other 
Protestant Churches, are the same to-day as a thousand 
years ago. The ascetic feature remains, though the renun- 
ciations have been limited to those sweets of life which can 
be most easily dispensed with. The saving of the soul by 
the most methodical, and, from a dogmatic point of view, the 



224 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

most certain means, is still the chief concern. Extreme 
caution in all relations with fellow-men, avoidance rather 
than resistance of temptation, a strict observance of outward 
forms, a hatred of all that is natural, the assumption of the 
utter depravity of man, the belief in the meritoriousness of a 
gloomy life, want of admiration of the beauties of the human 
form, a jealous uncharitableness towards all weakness of the 
flesh in others — all these peculiarities which distinguished the 
ascetics of the early churches are still to be found among those 
who have been brought up in the modern ascetic morality. 

Ascetic morality itself is a miscarriage of religion, and in 
modern times it constitutes a terrible obstacle to Chris- 
tianity in the nobler sense of the word, partly by dis- 
placing it and partly by discrediting it. There can be no 
doubt that we live in a time of a general awakening to the 
moral responsibility of human beings — an awakening which 
sometimes takes the form of a deeper religious life in the 
churches, and sometimes that of a thoroughly honest scep- 
ticism, often the result of a religious yearning of a nature too 
elevated to find the realisation of its ideal in the existing 
sects. The more this modern movement advances, the more 
will ascetic morality be regarded as an object unworthy to 
strive for. 

When, therefore, a certain class of people claim that 
morality is the object of certain peculiar actions, it behoves 
us to closely examine what kind of morality they mean. If 
they mean the unnatural, bigoted, ascetic morality, which in 
our day tends to become as much repudiated by sincere 
thinkers as it would have been repudiated by the founder of 
the Christian religion, their object is one that should be 
resisted to the utmost. Whenever it has been tried to render 
people moral by making them unnatural, by isolating the 
sexes, by screening them from temptation, and by doing 



- 



FREE TRADE IN AMUSEMENTS 225 

violence to their imagination, the result has been deep-rooted 
immorality. The free intercourse of young people of both 
sexes in family circles and social entertainments in Great 
Britain, the United States, and many British Colonies, has 
produced a respect for morality, purity of mind, and a self- 
control which do not exist, and which no fair-minded man 
would expect, in countries where the two sexes are kept apart 
up to the day of marriage. A man or a woman must be 
utterly depraved not to understand that the social inter- 
course of the two sexes has great attractions, vivifying 
emotions, and pure joys which do not spring from any 
sexual — at least not animal sexual — promptings. To deny 
this would be to deny all the charms that have sprung from 
chivalry and romance, it would be to deny the existence of 
true love, which in this country is the motive-power of so 
much wondrous devotion and of so much spontaneous crime, 
it would be to deny the reality of pure friendship between 
boy and girl, man and woman. 

When a young man or woman is deprived of all the 
pleasures afforded by the social intercourse of the sexes, 
when their emotional nature is, so to say, turned against 
itself, when no pure-minded impressions stand between them 
and their animal nature, when their imagination is left to 
grow rank, uninfluenced by the beautiful realities of the 
world, then it is that morbid cravings gain ascendancy over 
them, and that maddening hallucinations hold up an immoral 
life as a picture of material apotheosis rendered seductive, 
not only by sexuality, but by all that is enchanting in 
chivalry, romance, love, and nature. The legend of Saint 
Anthony has its moral. 

English people who have studied France are well aware 
that many deplorable features in French social life are not 
due to what public opinion in England generally ascribes 

V 



226 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

them — to the inborn immorality of the French nation, but 
to the educational system, the estrangement of the sexes, and 
the mercenary, loveless marriages. Apart from artificially 
produced effects, the French nation is probably quite as 
moral as any other nation. What wonder if, subjected to 
an unnatural ethical system which does violence to their 
legitimate but intense aspirations for happiness and vitiates 
their powerful imagination, they should kick over the traces 
of an official morality which they despise and of which they 
feel the demoralising effects. 

What other results could be expected from an educational 
system which, in France, imprisons young boys in large 
barracks, excludes them from all home influence and all the 
civilising refinement of feminine society — a system which by 
withholding every literary reference, every pictorial represen- 
tation, and every poetical embodiment of the fair sex, allows 
their unguided imaginations to be fanned to fever heat ? 
How can a moral life be expected from a young man who 
leaves college trained, not as a citizen, but as a young 
monk, and who enters upon a world where social custom 
imprisons all the respectable and virtuous young" women 
and plunges him into Hetarism. 

While the French system of educating boys is bound to 
produce a morbid curiosity which is likely to leave an im- 
pression for life, it has been noticed, especially by foreigners 
who visit England, that the freedom English boys enjoy, in 
face of the reasonable liberality of our censors regarding 
pictures and photographs, has in no way produced the 
demoralising results which the votaries of artificial morality 
dread. While in France and many other continental 
countries, boys who happen to pass the window of a picture- 
shop invariably concentrate their attention on such pictures 
as mostly display the feminine form, in England, on the 



FREE TRADE IN AMUSEMENTS 327 

other hand, such pictures and photographs receive but scant 
attention from lads who, on the contrary, are intensely 
interested in pictures of sport, adventure, and even prize- 
fighting. This striking contrast arises from the fact that 
the English boy of our time from his earliest childhood is 
familiar with pictures representing ladies in tights or nude 
divinities. 

All these facts should be borne in mind by those who 
dogmatise about public amusements or about the nude in art. 
They should remember that there is much in nature and art 
which short-sighted Pharisees have rashly branded as im- 
moral, solely on the ground that it might prove so many 
temptations, especially to morbid imaginations like their 
own, but which, in reality, help to beautify and ennoble our 
lives without demoralising us. 

Wesley said, when he was criticised for adopting secular 
melodies for the hymns of his congregation, ' Why should 
the Devil have the best tunes ? , And so with regard to 
public performances, pictures and statues, we may ask, 
'Why should the Devil have the monopoly of all that is 
beautiful ? ' 

The advocates of police morality seldom or ever take into 
consideration what every artist, every human being of artistic 
temperament knows perfectly well, that the demoralising 
effects of a picture, a statue, or a costume do not depend on 
the amount of drapery applied. A nude figure may be 
perfectly decent and chaste, while the completely draped 
figure may be dangerously demoralising. All depends upon 
the spirit in which it is conceived or presented. We have 
seen a picture of a young nude nymph, palpitating with life, 
rushing through flowery entanglements in a state of love- 
frenzy, and yet the representation could evoke nothing more 
than an intense admiration of the created world, a feeling of 



228 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

faith in our divine nature, and a desire for all those virtues 
which render our life rich and intense. On the other hand, 
we have seen a picture representing a young girl in an every- 
day dress, reading a book in a library, painted in such a 
spirit as to render it unfit for exhibition in decent society. 

So long as the public censor has his influence restricted to 
outward forms, and so long as he cannot touch the spirit in 
which a work of art is produced, or a part performed, his 
power for mischief must ever remain greater than his power 
for good. The only manner in which he can render his 
function tolerable to the public, and at the same time to 
some extent satisfy his own conscience, is by judging, not 
according to his own personal bias, the views of his church, 
or the opinion he has held up to date, but according to the 
opinion of the public at the time. Does not this suggest 
the question whether it would not be better to let public 
opinion exercise its influence over public amusements directly, 
instead of letting it filter through the mind of overworked 
officials, where it runs a great risk of being distorted ? 

When a public body, like the London County Council 
for example, arrogates to itself the right to regulate other 
people's pleasures by assuming the function of censor, the 
almost inevitable consequence is that the morality of a 
superficial, unreal and hypocritical nature becomes the goal 
towards which the public is whipped. The County Council 
being the outcome of popular elections, they represent to a 
large extent the uneducated masses, and to a very small 
extent the educated people of society. Consequently, the 
power wielded by the County Council over so important a 
factor in the people's ethics as public amusements, tends to 
abase the whole of the community to the low ethical stand- 
point of its least educated members. It is not denied that 
this indirect influence of the masses is exercised with the 



"^ 



FREE TRADE IN AMUSEMENTS 229 

intention of furthering morality, but it is here contended 
that the morality set up as the ideal in this manner is of a 
narrow, bigoted and hypocritical kind, unworthy to be 
striven for. It partakes of the ascetic morality we have 
described, and by falling below the ideal of a great number 
of the citizens, and by corrupting and confusing public 
opinion as to real morality, it exercises a retrograde and 
demoralising influence on the people at large. 

When, therefore, we contend that a body, like the County 
Council, — representing all that is biassed, sectarian, inartistic, 
unaesthetic in the community, — is the last body in the world 
that should be entrusted with the power over our taste and 
our amusement, and that it is absurd to allow them to 
impose upon us their own narrow standard of morality, 
we think we shall have the support of a nation that has 
learned the value of religious liberty. 

But, even if the standard of morality raised by the County 
Council were all that could be desired, the attitude of this 
body, or of any pragmatical body, towards public amuse- 
ments would have to be condemned on moral grounds, 
because the authoritative methods of influencing the public 
do, and must, tend to results the opposite of those desired. 
Governments, as well as County Councils, have no other 
methods of attaining their objects than those which have 
ever failed since the dawn of civilisation, namely, regulation, 
inspection and prohibition. 

The system works in the following way : First, the regula- 
tion is issued as to how people should behave. Though the 
avowed object is to improve, say, the morals of the whole 
population, and the new regulation is supposed to apply to 
private life and private dwellings, as well as to public places, 
it is from the very outset entirely impossible to enforce the 
new rules beyond the latter. This is the first failure of official 



230 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

regulation and an immense one. It is soon found that the 
official regulations are entirely discarded unless violently en- 
forced. Constant supervision over public places, therefore, 
becomes necessary. To make such supervision effective when 
the breaking through of official regulations has passed into 
a sport involves an enormous personnel of inspectors and a 
heavier expense than the community is willing to bear. 
Two ways of escaping from this dilemma invariably suggest 
themselves to the bureaucratic mind. The first way is pro- 
hibition. In order to limit the area to be supervised, public 
functions and public amusements are prohibited except in a 
few specially reserved places, where they can readily be 
subjected to supervision. This involves the granting of 
monopolies to certain places, and especially to certain people, 
a sin dear to officialism. By the establishment of such 
monopolies the officials gain many advantages, such as 
cheaper administration, less work, and an immense power 
over a small group of monopolists with large pecuniary 
resources. 

The other way in which the bureaucratic mind overcomes 
the difficulty of supervision is to make the supervision a 
sham. Causes are never noticed or attacked, and only glar- 
ing effects are prevented or subdued. Inspectors are given 
a wide margin for the exercise of their judgment, which is 
largely tempered by the friendliness of the monopolist to 
the inspector. 

Thus the grandiose enactment of the authority which was 
to render the people moral has utterly failed to produce the 
hoped-for results. The only good effect that can be pointed 
to is the prevention of some public scandals, which no one 
is more desirous or better able to suppress than the public 
themselves. But it remains to be considered what undesir- 
able results have been produced. 



^M. 



FREE TRADE IN AMUSEMENTS 231 

The monopoly system in public amusements, indispensable 
to all methods of bureaucratic supervision, is in itself an 
evil of the first magnitude. It places in the hands of a 
few individuals an immense power over one of the chief 
educational, moral, and character-forming agencies of the 
community. It limits the opportunities of elevating plea- 
sure. It prevents by prohibitive prices the large bulk of the 
struggling population from rationally enjoying such arts as 
music and the drama, and frequently excludes them from 
every aesthetic enjoyment. It drives masses of people to 
satisfy their emotional cravings in drink and debauchery. 
It frequently causes the stage to be monopolised for un- 
worthy purposes, such, for example, as advertising one 
special actor, as gratifying the vanity of an influential author, 
and as displaying the personal charms of a manageress, etc. 
It precludes free competition in art, and stands in the way 
of talented young authors and artists. 

How real these evils are few can realise, for the simple 
reason that we have not yet had the example of a country 
in which the healthy stimulus of free competition, individual 
initiative, and natural supply and demand, have been applied 
to public amusements. But judging from the effect of 
freedom in other branches of human activity, there is much 
to hope for from Free Trade in Amusements. The same 
opinions which nowadays prevail regarding the necessity of 
authoritative supervision over places of public entertain- 
ment have been persistently maintained regarding other 
departments. But wherever government action has been 
called in to protect the people and to prevent abuses, the 
results have always been the exact contrary of what was 
expected. 

Experience furnishes striking examples. Before 1844 the 
opinion prevailed in England which now prevails in so many 



THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

other countries, that government protection of native indus- 
tries would be good for the trade of the country, but 
when this form of government interference was abolished in 
England, British trade rose in twenty-five years 600 per cent. 

So long as government exerted itself to keep the gold coin 
full weight, the cutting and filing, — or, as it is called, the 
sweating of coin, — was a common practice, and seemed to 
increase in the same proportion as it was visited by heavier 
punishment. But it entirely disappeared when government 
withdrew its interference, and left the public to look after 
the weight of the coin. 

So long as government kept in force special laws in order 
to protect borrowers against high interest, usury flourished 
to an extraordinary extent, and the most appalling rates of 
interest had to be paid. But never was so heavy a blow 
dealt to usury as when the Usury Laws were abolished. In 
another chapter we have shown that what remains of it is 
entirely due to government monopoly in banking. 

In olden times baking was a strictly regulated govern- 
ment monopoly in most countries, with the object of pro- 
tecting the poor against grasping bakers, but it is a well- 
known fact that not only has bread become cheaper and of 
better quality, but the supply has become more certain 
and more regular, in the same measure as the competition 
in baking has become freer. 

After the great Plague there was an extra demand for 
working-people, especially domestic servants, and as they 
naturally demanded high wages, government was called upon 
to prevent them from taking what was thought an unfair 
advantage. For about two centuries government experi- 
mented with all kinds of draconic laws, directed against both 
servants and masters, in the hope of reducing wages, but 
without the slightest success whatever. On the contrary, 



m 



FREE TRADE IN AMUSEMENTS 233 

the special legislation seemed to raise the wages, as it drove 
domestic servants to take up other work. 

Many governments have tried to legislate against certain 
articles of luxury, but the result has always been to bring 
those very articles into fashion, and to cause the whole 
population to enter into a conspiracy to break the law and 
protect the law-breakers. 

What has constantly happened with regard to objectionable 
literature ought to throw a vivid light on the bad effect of 
government interference with the people's pleasures. Never 
probably was there a time when less restriction was laid 
upon obscene literature, and never was there a time when 
less of it was circulated. Besides, it is notorious that any 
attempt on the part of the police to stop the circulation of 
a book or of a paper is an enormous advertisement, which 
will be constantly courted so long as there is any chance of 
obtaining it. Government parental supervision in this 
respect thus, far from purifying literature, holds out a 
tremendous premium to obscene authors. 

Only when we have experienced a period of freedom in 
public amusements shall we be able to judge to what an 
extent immorality and obscenity on the stage have been 
encouraged by State supervision. 

Despite all these facts, the old fallacious belief — that only 
through government control can public amusements be pre- 
vented from demoralising the people — will die very hard. 
Many of the evils monopoly produces are looked upon by 
the enemies of liberty as advantages. Thus, they will 
probably say the monopoly in theatrical performances, which 
bureaucratic meddling invariably produces, is not an evil 
but a good. It is easier, they would say, to secure a small 
number of good theatrical managers than a large one, and, 
when a theatre is a quasi-monopoly, the selection of the 



234 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

manager is likely to be better than when left to the free 
action of the laws of supply and demand. Free Trade in 
theatricals might, they mean, place unscrupulous, irrespon- 
sible people at the head of large theatres. Or managers 
might take advantage of their liberty and produce disgust- 
ing performances, or go to excess in the matter of costume, 
or rather lack of costume, and generally pander to the 
very worst taste. 

All this might seem reasonable to the good people whose 
faith in the omniscience of the government and the police is 
unbounded ; but what do logic and experience say ? When 
theatrical performances are monopolised by a limited number 
of licensed establishments, and conducted under strict bureau- 
cratic rules, it is impossible that any one could exercise his 
talents as a manager without a very considerable capital at 
his back. The chief qualifications, for example, of a London 
manager are not knowledge of the drama, literary ability, 
artistic taste, devotion to duty, but capital. When he is 
not a capitalist himself, he becomes a creature in the hands 
of capitalists, and must in the first place be a clever business 
man. In this way, the absence of freedom tends to bring 
the wrong man to the front. London's experiences in 
theatrical performances goes far to show that the present 
system does not in any way ensure pieces commendable 
either in one way or the other. The immense number of 
failures seem to point to the fact that the majority of 
managers do not understand their business. How else can 
we account for the fact that so many pieces are put upon 
the stage at great expense and trouble, only to be recognised 
even by the gallery gods as utter trash before the curtain 
has fallen on the first act ? 

There seem to be all over England managers who have a 
fatal weakness for bad pieces, and this is all the more aston- 



m 



FREE TRADE IN AMUSEMENTS 235 

ishing, as invariably those managers make most money who 
do not pander to bad taste and immorality, but give high- 
class performances. 

From this it should be evident that the bad managers — 
or the purveyors of low-class performances — can only get a 
living through the present monopoly system. Under a 
system of free competition their public would be drawn from 
them by small performances in all sorts of theatres, halls 
and private houses, where its tastes would be gratified in the 
same way as it is gratified in the best managed theatres. 

There are theatres in London which are filled every night, 
simply because a mass of people in search of amusement and 
excitement have no other place to go to. The theatres are 
in an immense disproportion to the population, and under the 
present State-meddling system they will always remain so. 

When a considerable number of them have hit upon draw- 
ing pieces, the majority of the people who do not care to see 
pieces twice must do without an evening's amusement, or visit 
a performance which is far from having their full sympathy. 
This explains how an elaborate piece may be performed at 
great expense, may encounter the coldest possible reception 
from the public, and yet be played night after night to a 
full house. 

The facility with which the monopoly system allows 
managers to force either objectionable or dull pieces on the 
public is lamented especially by the working-classes. The 
managers who cater for them are of course business men, 
and bring naturally all their business shrewdness to bear on 
their enterprise. A general principle of business is : avoid 
risks, and let your profits run on. And this, applied to a 
theatrical manager, means that if one drama succeeds, keep 
on playing the same class of dramas so long as it pays. He 
does so, and public taste is at a standstill. Moreover, as 



236 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

under the monopoly system the dramatic and literary value 
of a piece counts for little, while sensations and advertise- 
ments count for everything, pieces — especially those intended 
for the working-classes — are often written round some sen- 
sational incident or scenery which lends itself specially to 
advertising. How is it possible that such pieces can fail to 
degrade the drama ? There can, therefore, be no doubt that 
monopoly is no guarantee against bad performances, and that 
managers, as well as authors, abuse it to the fullest extent. 

It is of course the abuse of liberty in public amusements, 
as in many other matters, which the majority of people 
would fear. This fear of liberty, the cause of innumerable 
evils in so many countries, can only be explained by the 
tendency in most human beings to accept their opinions 
from parents and other authorities without using their own 
judgment. Perhaps the helplessness of childhood, and the 
habit acquired from youth upwards to lean on somebody, go 
far to explain it. The authoritative teaching of religion, 
and the acquirement of many scientific facts by memory 
instead of conviction, have no doubt fostered distrust in their 
own reasoning powers in the great majority of minds. That 
the fear of liberty is communicated from generation to gener- 
ation by teachings and example, and that it is not inherent 
in human nature, is amply illustrated by experience. The 
love of freedom is the leading theme in the poetry of many 
nations, especially in those which have suffered bondage. 
The same love was ever the greatest obstacle met with by 
despots and ambitious statesmen. The deprivation of liberty 
is considered one of the most dreaded punishments that can 
be inflicted on prisoners, and to regain it they will run the 
wildest risks. In the defence or conquest of national liberty 
a people will sacrifice all, including their own lives and the 
lives of their best beloved. 



FREE TRADE IN AMUSEMENTS 237 

Nor does experience justify any fear of bad results from 
liberty in practical affairs. Most nations have prospered 
to the same extent that they have enjoyed liberty, and in 
every country trade and industry have suffered with the 
application of every State-meddling Act. It is an acknow- 
ledged fact that literature, the arts and the sciences, have 
never flourished without the tonic of freedom. The asser- 
tion, were it true, that the finest music has been composed 
under despotic governments, would only prove that in the 
absence of freedom the aspirations for liberty find their 
expression in the language that necessarily escapes the cen- 
sure of the police. 

As to the healthy influence of liberty on morals, the 
whole of history testifies to it. The subjection of a nation 
to a despot, the ruling of one people over another, the bond- 
age of one class or one race under another, the domination 
of a priest-craft — all this has always led to the demoralisa- 
tion of the subjected people. The proud Hottentots acquire 
all the attributes of the slave when held in bondage. The 
Jewish race, which in a thousand ways has proved its 
superiority in the past, has, in many countries, sunk by 
persecution, and especially by being deprived of even the 
commonest liberty, into a state of degradation low enough to 
bring upon itself an universal contempt ; and when the Jews 
are admitted to the enjoyment of freedom, the great quali- 
ties of this people speedily re-assert themselves. The pea- 
santry in such countries where serfdom never existed, as in 
Scandinavia and Switzerland, ever exhibited nobler virtues — 
at least until the modern tyranny of capital influenced them 
— than the peasantry that for centuries depended on feudal 
masters. 

If we pass from nations to individuals, we again find 
that those who from childhood have been trained without 



238 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

compulsion and restraint always possess a stronger sense 
of responsibility, and a greater power to resist temptation, 
than children of tyrannical and excessively strait-laced 
parents. 

In face of such a mass of evidence in favour of the healthy 
influence of freedom, it is impossible to attribute the popular 
fear of Free Trade in Amusements to anything but those 
unreasonable prejudices which so frequently are taken as a 
heritage from preceding generations. 

And what are the dreadful things that would happen in 
case the British people were allowed to manage their own 
amusements free from the interference of government, police, 
county councils and the public censor ? However black 
these consequences may be painted, we hold it impos- 
sible that a picture of them could be more frightful than 
that of the consequences once expected from religious 
liberty. There was a time when the suggestion of such 
complete religious liberty as we enjoy now would have 
caused fanatics to predict that Christendom would dis- 
appear, that the heathen religions would be revived in 
aggravated forms, that devil - worship and magic would 
spread like wild-fire, that clever swindlers would, as ana- 
baptists and false prophets, induce the people, with religious 
orgies and riotous rites, to raise their high priests to quasi- 
divine power, that the advent of the Anti-Christ would be 
a common occurrence, and that destruction of all good feel- 
ing, decency and moral sense would lower the nation to the 
level of brutes. 

But none of these terrible predictions have been fulfilled. 
If among England's 120 sects some extraordinary but after 
all harmless superstitions have been cherished, such as, 
for instance, the mania of Joanna Southcote, religious 
liberty has, on the other hand, brought about an earnest- 



FREE TRADE IN AMUSEMENTS 239 

ness in religious matters which was unknown before dissent 
began, and even the Church of England has benefited and 
improved since the rivalry of the new sects has caused a 
considerable revival of religious zeal among the clergy of 
the Established Church. 

The evils dreaded from Free Trade m Amusements are 
far from being as distinctly predicted as were those expected 
from religious liberty, and, if we succeeded in focussing them, 
it would be found that they would chiefly consist in the 
difficulty of supervision. If we only bear in mind that in a 
state of freedom supervision becomes superfluous, as there 
would be no regulations to observe, all the main difficulties 
disappear. 

One of the chief objects of regulation and supervision is 
to safeguard public morality. The reason why such super- 
vision has up till now been considered necessary will be found, 
on investigation, to consist exclusively in the old supposition 
that the people cannot behave decently except under authori- 
tative compulsion. It is astonishing that such a libel upon 
the British nation has not called forth the severe rebuke it 
deserves. All thinking observers, and not least foreign 
visitors, who ought to take an unbiassed view, are struck 
with the order, decency and cheerfulness which prevail 
wherever masses of English people congregate : at political 
meetings, where thousands meet in one hall, at public 
festivities or processions when miles of streets are densely 
packed ; nay, even when excitement runs high, as at political 
demonstrations, shipwrecks, the British people know well 
how to restrain themselves without any compulsion what- 
ever. 

The argument of the advocates of coercion is that though 
the English people have shown themselves proof against 
other forms of excitement, they cannot be trusted in select- 



240 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

ing decent amusements. Here the question arises, Which 
section of the people cannot be trusted? The working- 
classes, or the wealthy classes ? As to the former, they are 
the very people who have voted for such of our County 
Councils which make the greatest public display of morality. 
It is the working-classes that patronise the theatres where 
the most decorous pieces are given. Anybody who has 
heard the hearty way in which the virtuous hero and 
heroine are applauded in a Drury Lane drama, and the 
hisses rained down upon the unfortunate actor who takes 
the part of the villain, can have no doubt as to the sense 
of morality among the English working-classes. And in 
such places where police supervision does not reach, in the 
houses of the people themselves, do we there find liberty 
abused in order to gratify immoral cravings ? 

Misgovernment, and the poverty it brings about, unfortu- 
nately compel people and families to huddle together in one 
house, but it will generally be found that as much decency 
is observed as circumstances will allow, and it is hardly 
ever the case that, on occasions of rejoicing in such houses, 
the amusements deliberately take the form of indecent 
debauchery. Even in such deplorable cases where young 
people of both sexes have to share the same bedroom there 
is far less immorality than could be possibly supposed. 
And, in spite of all this, it is taken for granted that if these 
classes were allowed to manage their own amusements 
they would create and attend Pandemonia of profligacy 
and debauch. It is coolly supposed that the people who in 
private life do their utmost to respect the tenets of morality 
and decency would at once throw away their self-respect and 
sense of shame to such an extent as to countenance indecent 
public performances. Only inherited prejudices can account 
for such utterly illogical conclusions, 



FREE TRADE IN AMUSEMENTS 241 

Or, is it the upper classes, those who now fill the stalls at 
Operas Bouffes, who are expected to be the patrons of degrad- 
ing public performances as soon as the police supervision is 
withdrawn ? The life in English upper-class homes and 
country seats where often many congregrate, and where not 
seldom performances are given, do not furnish any pretext 
whatsoever for such suspicion. Among wealthy young 
men about town, busily engaged in sowing their wild oats, 
there may be many who, in their feverish quest of pleasure 
and excitement, would take but little heed of decency. But, 
as a rule, it will be found that even these will show far 
greater self-restraint when taking their pleasure in public 
than they would if driven by strict regulations to seek 
excitement in hidden places beyond the public ken. The 
more attractive performances, under the Argus-eyed public, 
can be made, the less will secret dens of corruption flourish. 

Our opponents would no doubt be ready to furnish a list 
of more or less imaginary evils if Free Trade in Amusements 
were introduced into the United Kingdom. It would be 
impossible here to anticipate them all, but we shall instance 
one or two of the worst. They would say : If anybody could 
give public performances, every public-house would be turned 
into a theatre, a dancing-saloon, or a music-hall. Given that 
public-houses were connected with theatres, or other places 
of amusement, where would the evil be ? Hosts of English 
people who have visited the Continent speak with admiration 
of the good effect produced on the people by public establish- 
ments where, for an extremely moderate entrance-fee, a good 
performance can be witnessed, or good music listened to, 
while but a minimum of refreshments is indulged in. Why 
should not the combination of entertainment and refresh- 
ments produce the same effect in England ? Here, it will 
be objected, such a thing would lead to riotous conduct and 

0. 



242 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

low life. Our reply is, that where such evils have been 
witnessed they have always been in connection with estab- 
lishments holding a monopoly in virtue of State regulation 
and supervision. Under a free system low places of amuse- 
ment would have no chance whatever, because people of 
great capacity and small resources would be able to oppose 
them by ruinous competition. The greater part of the 
public would always prefer the least low form of entertain- 
ment, and the proprietors of the lower ones would not have 
a sufficient support to keep them going. Just as monopoly 
tends to degrade the public taste by low performances, and 
the degraded taste again encourages low performances, so 
freedom, opening the field for the selection of the fittest, 
ennobles the public taste by improving performances, and 
the ennobled public taste encourages in its turn the improve- 
ment in performances. 

The fear that by rendering public amusements too attrac- 
tive and too cheap we might tempt the people to waste their 
substance in pleasure to the detriment of happiness in the 
home is as groundless as any other fear of liberty. In 
such countries as France and Germany, where public amuse- 
ments are good and cheap, the people are thriftier than in 
any other countries. In Russia where public pleasures are 
scarce and bad, the people will, when they have any money, 
waste it on the silliest show imaginable. There is nothing 
strange in this. All dwellers in squalid homes, and for that 
matter every human being, will carry away from an artistic 
performance in an attractive public place a strong desire to 
improve his surroundings, and to bring his home-life more 
into harmony with his ideals. 

Another objection which is sure to be raised against Free 
Trade in Amusements is that nudity would be resorted to as 
an attraction by unscrupulous impresarios. This objection 



_^ 



FREE TRADE IN AMUSEMENTS 243 

is partially met by what has already been said, but it may 
be added that the nude is not attractive unless it is artistic- 
ally represented. 

The word 6 artistic ' should here be taken in its widest sense. 
Thus, nudity represented in a corpse, or displaying disease, 
decay, deformity, or uncleanness, is as repulsive as any thing- 
can be. There is a line which neither antique nor modern 
artists have infringed, where ennobling admiration is sup- 
planted by depressing shame and self-contempt, and this 
line limits artistic licence. It is, therefore, not nudity 
alone which constitutes the most demoralising pictures and 
representations, but rather its employment as an accessory 
in compositions conceived in an impure spirit. The spirit 
in which a work of art, or a representation, has been pro- 
duced is, as we have already remarked, beyond the censor, 
or the police. The more artistically the nude is represented 
the more it loses its corrupting influence, and may even be 
applied in art with the most elevating results. 

Besides, it should be borne in mind that when the country 
advances into freedom in every department, the poverty and 
misery, which in the United Kingdom are the chief causes of 
feminine depravity, will disappear, and it will not be easy to 
induce Englishwomen to take part in any performance that 
would involve the sacrifice of their respect and the esteem 
of their friends. Free competition in public performances 
would certainly lessen the number of such men as are 
lured into the many vile haunts now flourishing in London 
and other big cities in spite of regulations, supervision, 
and prohibition. Though, under a free system, some 
immoral performances might take place, the fact of their 
being public and permitted would render them less degrad- 
ing than existing dens of debauchery into which many people 
now venture, relying on their incognito. 



244 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

But our opponents object to Free Trade in Amusements 
not only on the ground of what might take place on the 
stage, but also on the ground of the peopled behaviour in the 
auditorium. To judge by recent events there seem to exist 
persons whose minds are so constructed as to believe it con- 
ducive to public morality to prohibit the serving of refresh- 
ments, especially intoxicants, in spaces purposely set apart 
within the auditorium of a theatre, while such sale in an 
adjacent room may be allowed without any evil consequences; 
also that no space for moving about, or promenading, as the 
term is, should be permitted in any place of public amuse- 
ment. Of course no public body of men would frankly 
proclaim such absurd notions in a free nation, but on the 
ground of special investigation objections have been raised 
against one London place of public amusement which evi- 
dently emanated from the above startling opinions. The 
case should be a warning to our County Councillors of how 
dangerous it is to establish far-reaching precedents and to 
run counter to first principles by rashly clutching at remedies 
against one single manifestation of one single phase in the 
many consequences of a deep-lying cause. The question of 
the social evil is one that is very far from having been so 
completely investigated and so perfectly posed as to be 
brought to any extent nearer to its final settlement by 
arbitrary interference with personal freedom in one single 
place. The social aspect of the problem is far from being 
agreed upon. If it be admitted that a general indulgence 
in early marriages is the right solution, we are at once faced 
by an economic problem which certainly demands solution 
in the first place. Such a solution not being acknowledged, 
what about the social evil in the meantime ? It then be- 
comes, in the second place, a hygienic question to be settled 
by expert doctors who have not given a decision, and whose 



'-- -• 



FREE TRADE IN AMUSEMENTS 245 

decision might or might not be accepted. If the decision of 
many eminent medical men were accepted, common justice 
and Christian charity would compel more consideration for 
fallen women ; and if, on the other hand, the views of many 
clergymen and of our purists were found correct, or were at 
least generally accepted, then it would be time, but not 
before then, for the County Councils to act. But even then 
they would have no excuse for proceeding in the manner 
they have done : namely, by attacking with a great deal of 
noise, scandal, self-advertisement, and Pharisaism, an isolated 
effect of a cause which first should have been attacked. 

A sincere purist ought to investigate and eradicate the 
social, religious and economic causes from which the exist- 
ence of fallen women springs. If too blind, too incapable, 
or too unwilling to do this, he should at least turn his attack 
against the very existence of fallen women. But he should 
not begin by objecting to their presence in an indoor public 
place where no one is either compelled or asked to enter, and 
from which any one may stay away. If our County Councils 
thus tackle the problem from the wrong end they will have 
great trouble to persuade the world that they have had any 
other motive than a morbid craving for notoriety. They 
must not be surprised if the big tidal wave of unhealthy 
discussion which has rolled all over the country polluting 
millions of minds is laid at their door, and if diagrams are 
drawn showing the disproportion between the evil they 
purported to abolish — the presence of a bevy of decently 
behaved fallen women at the c Empire , — and the evil they 
have caused by bringing the whole of such a question into 
the English papers to which all members of families have 
access. 

Though deploring the utter want of logic in our so-called 
purist County Councillors, we do not belong to those who 



246 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

impute selfish motives to the heroes of the ' Empire ' case. 
We are glad therefore to acknowledge that they have been 
actuated by a desire to purify London places of amuse- 
ment. ' The question is,' they have proclaimed, ' whether 
London shall still have pure places of amusement or not."' 
We beg to say, however, that this is not the question at all. 
It could never be a question for the London County Council, 
and far less for a clique of illogical fanatics. The chief 
question raised by the 'Empire' incident is whether the 
English are to remain a free nation or not. Then it raises 
a host of other questions, many of which have been discussed 
here ; but whether London is to have pure public amuse- 
ments, or not, is a question that should be solved, and under 
any circumstances could only be solved, by Londoners them- 
selves. 

Complete freedom in amusements should, however, not be 
introduced at once, but should be the final goal at which 
we should aim, and part of an Individualist system. Each 
step in the right direction will prepare the ground for the 
next ; and, if backslidings are avoided, Free Trade in Amuse- 
ments will be achieved without any of the awful consequences 
imagined by many of our hysterical contemporaries. 



IX 

FREE TRADE IN LAND 

Though the Land |Question is as old as history, it is only in 
comparatively recent times that it has become one of the 
problems pressing for solution. The increase of the popula- 
tion, the rapid rise in value of coveted estates and land- 
plots, and the improvements in agriculture, would have 
rendered the ownership of land a burning question much 
earlier than was the case, had not the immense resources 
of land in our Colonies allayed the fear of overcrowding. 

When emigration from the United Kingdom began to 
assume the proportions which this century has witnessed, the 
whole nation was amazed at the reports of the vast expanses 
of rich virgin soil, eminently suitable for cultivation, which 
in our Colonies awaited the cultivator. Canada, Australia, 
and New Zealand presented geological and climatic con- 
ditions corresponding to those of the mother country, and 
the lands in these regions were sold at ridiculously low prices 
when they were not actually given away. While in Europe 
the Malthusian theories had rendered over-population a 
plausible problem, in our Colonies the question was how 
to increase the population. 

The development of our Colonies contributed in other 
ways to retard the advance of the Land question. It was 
observed, with great satisfaction, that the huge territories 
of fertile soil in our Colonies would tend to render these 



248 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

agricultural States, and it was naturally supposed that they 
would supply themselves from England with manufactured 
goods ; all the more so as the development of manufacture in 
England could not fail to secure for our Colonies high prices 
for their products. The suicidal Protective policy, adopted 
by some of our Colonies, was not anticipated. With a 
prospect, therefore, of a constantly growing supply of cheap 
food from the new States of the Empire, and with an as 
constantly growing demand for British goods in new countries 
capable of almost boundless development, the British nation 
could regard with equanimity the rapidly increasing price of 
land. A natural division of labour between the different 
parts of the Empire was expected in which the United King- 
dom would have the manufacturing allotted to itself. As, 
despite the rise in land in Great Britain, there was no fear 
of its scarcity for manufacturing purposes, the Land question 
attracted but little attention. 

But the unexpected turn taken by the development of the 
Colonies gradually caused the Land question to assume a 
different aspect. When colonial farming began to yield 
less profit, when the high wages to labourers began to 
decline, when emigration fell off, when, in short, a dull 
stagnation replaced the intense growth of activity which 
characterised the birth of the colonial commonwealths, the 
hoped for healthy co-operation between them and the mother 
country threatened to remain a pleasant delusion. The 
stagnation in the Colonies was not regarded as temporary, 
but as the natural and inevitable drawback of our civilisa- 
tion. Strange to say, our statesmen and our economists 
accepted with equanimity what appear to be the results of 
the increased population in our Colonies as such, though 
these were at variance with logic and the unquestionable 
laws of Political Economy. 



FREE TRADE IN LAND 249 

The high wages, the intense demand for labourers, and 
the large profits which characterise the first stage of develop- 
ment in a new country, actually changed into sweating, 
scarcity of work, and losses, under the application of the 
best possible known stimulants to prosperity. Railways, 
telegraphs, ports, perfected implements, increased capital, and 
improved tribunals, above all, a better organised division 
of labour, made possible through increased population — all 
these powerful stimulants to prosperity resulted in stagnation. 
And yet a desire to explain this astounding anomaly was 
roused neither here nor in the Colonies. The existing Col- 
lectivist prejudices, and the spurious economic reasoning they 
have induced, caused individual liberty to be blamed. The 
only remedies suggested were of a Socialistic nature utterly 
inadequate, and acceptable even to Collectivists as realisable 
only centuries hence. 

When farmers and farm labourers were told that farming 
did not pay in the Colonies, where hundreds of millions of 
farms might be created ; when working-men found that they 
were not wanted in countries where Providence had created 
a practically boundless scope for labour ; when capitalists by 
dear experience had learned that nothing but gold and silver 
mining would pay in the Colonies ; when British products 
were shut out from our own dependencies ; and when the 
thousands of millions of natural wealth heaped up by nature 
in the new territories became inaccessible — the people of 
Great Britain naturally began to inquire how they could best 
provide for themselves and their descendants out of the small 
resources of land and minerals contained in these islands. 

The population of the United Kingdom kept increasing, 
and when the people had been talked into abandoning the 
idea of a harmonious co-operation between the integral parts 
of the Empire, the question naturally arose how the extortions 



250 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

on the part of landlords could in future be prevented when 
the population increased in geometrical ratio and land did 
not increase at all. Old theories regarding the exceptional 
nature of property in land as compared with other property 
assumed apparently vital importance. The fact is, that public 
attention, which in this manner was naturally drawn to the 
Land question, encouraged those who conceived and began 
to propagate the idea that private ownership in land was at 
the root of all the economic anomalies of our time. 

It is not surprising that such a school of thinkers should 
have arisen. Our economic system had shown a strong 
tendency to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer, and 
when, after the abandonment of the Individualist programme, 
the predictions of Cobden and Bright regarding prosperity 
appeared to have failed, it was natural that all political 
sections wanting political reforms should look for the 
cause of stagnation and poverty in such institutions as 
appeared to favour the wealthier classes exclusively. It 
came to be considered that not only our peculiar legislation 
regarding the tenure of land, but that even private owner- 
ship of land, were the means by which the wealthier classes 
of the country were enabled to tax the others on a scale 
which was bound to progress as the population increased. 

Strange to say, it was in the United States, in the country 
of immense resources of unutilised land, that the prophets 
of the Land Nationalisation sect arose. Mr. Henry George 
set himself the task of solving a problem which already was 
before every thinking mind throughout civilisation — namely, 
why progress should increase poverty ? The singular reason- 
ing by which he arrives at the conclusion that private 
ownership in land is responsible for the bulk of the evils of 
our civilisation need not be refuted here. 

It will suffice to point out that, in reviewing other features 



FREE TRADE IN LAND 251 

of our civilisation with the view of ascertaining whether they 
are conducive to poverty, he disposes of the all-important 
subject of the supply of capital to labour in a few pages, 
and comes to the astounding conclusion that there is no 
scope for improvement in this direction. And this in the 
United States, where certainly the banking system and the 
monetary institutions can be proved an absolute obstacle to 
that prosperity of the American masses which is natural to 
the resources of the country. 

No one can fail, when studying the Henry George theories, 
to be struck with two important facts : firstly, that all that 
can be said against private ownership in land applies to 
private ownership of capital ; and, secondly, that any man 
who owns capital may purchase land, and that consequently 
the ownership of land is one form of that tyranny for which 
capital is blamed. These facts would not be denied by the 
more intelligent members of the Land Nationalisation party. 
But it is because they are not prepared to vote for complete 
Socialism that they would refrain from nationalising the 
whole of the capital of the country. 

In attacking private ownership in land, arguments are 
lavishly used which, for lack of a better name, we may call 
sentimental arguments, — that is to say, arguments drawn 
from abstract justice, the rights of man, philanthropic im- 
pulses, and religion. In politico-economic discussions they 
are entirely out of place. The object of such discussions 
should be the precise and clearly defined one — the greatest 
possible prosperity for all the individuals in the State, — and 
when this object is agreed upon, the means by which to 
achieve it should of course be selected according to their 
effectiveness. If just, charitable, and religious people assuage 
such evils as will always exist even under the best economic 
system, they are prompted by motives which cannot pos- 



252 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

sibly fall within the range of economic science ; but if their 
motives are sincerely just, charitable and religious, they 
could not conscientiously vote against an economic system 
which is the most effective one in producing prosperity 
for all. 

When therefore we are told that the Creator intended the 
use of the land, like the air and the water, for the use of all ; 
that each citizen ought to have an equal right to the land ; 
that living on a plot of land, however small, is conducive to 
a moral life and a love of nature ; that a title upon which 
some of our noble families have held their lands for hundreds 
of years is not in harmony with moral rights, and perhaps 
not with legal rights; that large estates have by past 
sovereigns been granted in an unjustifiable manner, and even 
sometimes in payment of immoral services ; that the Chris- 
tian religion demands that those who possess more land than 
they require should give at least such lands as bring them in 
nothing to those who stand sorely in need of land — when we 
are told all this, and much more in the same strain, we 
should bear in mind that we are not called upon to decide 
ethical, moral and religious questions, but to find out the 
most expedient manner in which the prosperity of all may 
be furthered. 

If abstract justice, charity towards certain individuals or 
a certain class, or a historical Nemesis, be the object of a 
Land Reform, it might no doubt be attained, but only by 
sacrificing the prosperity of the people at large, or by making 
the happiness of the masses a secondary consideration. The 
advocates of Land Nationalisation, and of such measures as 
are to pave the way for it, do not take up this logical ground. 
As it is impossible to find sound economic reasoning against 
the system of private ownership in land, and as such 
pseudo-economic arguments as have to do service for it are 



FREE TRADE IN LAND 253 

weak and unconvincing, the sentimental arguments are made 
much of. 

Such methods of reasoning are often effective, because 
appeals to sentiment, be they good or bad, are always apt 
to tell more with the masses than logical deduction. But 
sentimental reforms, carried in opposition to logical deduc- 
tions, have never achieved, and can never achieve, the desired 
object. 

We here take for granted that any reform in our legisla- 
tion regarding the tenure of land should aim exclusively at 
the greatest possible prosperity for all, and the question we 
have to reply to consequently reduces itself to this : Is private 
ownership in land conducive to the prosperity of the masses 
or not ? 

To arrive at a satisfactory reply we must, firstly, ascertain 
whether any other form of land tenure would better achieve 
the object in view than private ownership ; secondly, whether 
the evils attributed to private ownership are actually due 
to it. 

The first question which arises is : What would take the 
place of private ownership of land in case it were abolished ? 
There is only one other alternative, that the land should be 
owned by the State. At first sight, collective ownership by 
the commune might appear as a third solution. But, as the 
management of the land by the commune would have to be 
enforced and supervised by the State, it amounts simply to 
one particular form of State management. The Anarchist 
theories regarding the land are far too hazy to be rationally 
discussed, but, as far as they have been hinted at, they seem 
to involve at least temporary private ownership. We have 
therefore simply to examine whether the ownership of the 
land by the State would benefit the masses more than private 
ownership. 



254 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

Our Collectivist opponents are in the habit of starting 
from a postulate which is extremely convenient in so far as 
it takes for granted exactly that which should be proved. 
They draw no distinction between the government, the 
ruling officials, and the collectors and consumers of the 
taxes on the one hand, and the governed, working and tax- 
paying people on the other. In this way they do not solve, 
but simply spirit away, a seven-thousand-year-old problem of 
government. By assuming that the people and the govern- 
ment are one, there can be no question of discussing the 
relations between the two, and if such a merging of two 
opponents were possible, there would be no necessity to 
further discuss any political, economic, or social problems. 

As, however, no one has yet found, or is likely to find, any 
practical method of realising the hocus-pocus reform which the 
Collectivists take for granted, we have to face the stubborn 
fact that the tax-consuming government will always remain 
the natural opponent of the tax-producing and tax-paying 
people. This antagonism in no way disproves, but rather 
confirms, the economic axiom of the solidarity of humanity, 
because the free play of economic forces which alone can 
demonstrate the truth of this axiom is violently disturbed 
in exact proportion as the power of the government over the 
individual is increased. 

It is no wonder, then, that all human experience so far has 
demonstrated that only by increasing as far as possible the 
control by the individual over the government, and by reduc- 
ing as far as possible the control by the government over the 
individual, can the advantage of the individual be secured. 

The Collectivists, by not distinguishing between the nation 
and the government, arrive at the opposite conclusion, in 
taking it for granted that by increasing the power of 
the government over the individual his advantage can be 



FREE TRADE IN LAND 255 

secured. In the same manner they suppose that what is 
given to the government is given to the individual, and it 
seems to them quite natural that if all the land be given to 
the government it has been given to the masses. 

Before examining what the application to land of such 
principles would lead to, it will be useful to show on general 
grounds how erroneous they are. We need not here con- 
sider the only alternative in which these principles are 
rendered capable of practical application, namely, in case of 
the government owning or disposing of everything in the 
State, including the working power of the people — that is to 
say, in case of complete Socialism. As already pointed out, 
complete Socialism cannot be discussed from a politico- 
economic point of view, as it would be the embodiment of 
the principles of Domestic or Patriarchal Economy. What 
we have to consider are the consequences in a comparatively 
free system — such as the bulk of our Collectivists hope to 
maintain — of allowing the government to collect a large 
proportion of the wealth owned or produced by the people, 
in order to disburse it for the benefit of the people. 

We have already in this work shown that both of these 
operations exercise a ruinous effect on all productive trades ; 
we have shown that every penny added to the taxes not only 
diminishes the capital in the hands of producers, and vitiates 
the proportion between the supply of labourers and the 
opportunities of work, but also discourages enterprise, raises 
the cost of production, facilitates foreign competition, alarms 
capital, and reduces consumption. We have also shown 
that the spending of capital by government and municipal 
bodies produces an equally bad, if not a worse, effect on 
trade. Each penny spent in this manner reduces in exact 
proportion the production, or else the value of the production, 
of the people of the district. For clearness' sake we reiterate 



256 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

an illustration already given, by pointing out that spending 
capital on the part of the authorities, even when brought 
into the district, produces the same paralysing effect on 
other industries as successful gold-mining would do : it 
renders gold cheap, and consequently everything else dear. 

If this be granted, it will be evident that capital taken 
from the people would indeed be to deprive the people of it, 
and at the same time to inflict upon the individuals the more 
considerable indirect losses which we have shown the opera- 
tion to entail ; also that there is no way in which the once 
collected capital could be returned to the people, without 
reducing production and creating poverty to an incompar- 
ably larger extent. The fearful ruin which would follow 
through the government collecting the enormous amount 
which all rents for land and buildings represent, and again 
throwing all that capital on the market, may therefore be 
readily imagined. 

That the accumulation of large funds in the hands of the 
government, and the dependence of the people on such funds, 
are a danger to the State and the last stage of its political 
existence, has been fully recognised by historical authori- 
ties, and confirmed by recent economic investigations. It 
is only since the universal retrograde movement towards 
Collectivism set in that these facts, and the historical 
events which corroborate them, have been ostentatiously 
ignored. What sincere historian, however, will deny that 
the Roman Empire was doomed when its government under- 
took to supply the masses with bread and games ? The fall 
of Rome, like that of other Empires before it, has been glibly 
attributed to corruption, and moral decay consequent upon 
the accumulation of wealth. Read in the light of rational 
Economy, history teaches a different lesson. It shows us 
that the accumulation and consumption of wealth were not 



FREE TRADE IN LAND 257 

in themselves the causes of decay, but that the manner in 
which the wealth was amassed and distributed was alone 
responsible. 

The wealth consumed in that city during the period 
of its decay was only in a very small proportion pro- 
duced in Rome, or in the surrounding territories belong- 
ing to the citizens. The bulk came to Rome and other 
large centres in the shape of tributes and taxes. While 
the presence of huge masses of the precious metals ren- 
dered any production for export impossible, the channels 
through which the accumulated wealth reached the people 
were necessarily corrupting. Men of political influence, 
court favourites, government officials, and wealthy usurers, 
were the people who came into possession, in the first 
instance, of the imported wealth. The only way the desti- 
tute people could attain to any part of it was by ministering 
to the wants, the pleasures, the vices of the purse-holders. 
It was inevitable that such an economic system should exer- 
cise a corrupting influence on politics, administration, morals, 
literature and art, and there are innumerable proofs that 
this was the case. 

The warning which the downfall of the Roman Empire 
proffers is by no means isolated. From the antique despot 
Nero down to Mr. Harrison, President of a democratic 
Republic, history bristles with illustrations of the fact that 
accumulation of wealth in the hands of the government for 
the use of the State is a cause of economic stagnation and 
corruption against which no constitution, no natural circum- 
stances, however favourable, and no racial qualities can 
protect a State. 

Let us now examine the actual immediate benefits which 
our Collectivists hope to evolve from a plunge into the most 
State-destructive system history records, at the very stage of 



258 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

our national development where circumstances, alarmingly 
similar to those which have driven previous Empires into the 
road of ruin, tempt us to reiterate their mistakes. 

If the State has the monopoly of the land, the immense 
capital which now flows from the land through thousands of 
channels, to diffuse itself among the people, would be diverted 
into one channel feeding the government reservoir. Conse- 
quently there would be an enormous diminution of capital 
in the hands of all trades and consumers, which could only 
be made good by supplies from the government reservoir. 
There would be a mass of government institutions, govern- 
ment works, government employes, and millions of government 
labourers, all of which would be entirely dependent on the 
Budget. The prosperity of the whole nation would to a 
very large extent be dependent on government expenditure, 
and there would be as great, if not greater, difficulties in 
balancing the Budget than now. The whole people, with 
the exception perhaps of the farmers, would demand, and 
justly so, that the revenue from the Land should be as great 
as possible. It is, therefore, absolutely certain that the 
government would be under the obligation to let the land 
at the full market value, because any other price would be 
deliberate robbery of all the non-farming classes. 

The first question, therefore, which a land-owning govern- 
ment would have to decide would be : What system of letting 
would be most favourable to the nation, and most financially 
effective in view of the heavy expenses ? Not only the 
country at large, but even the occupiers of land themselves, 
would insist that the land should be in the hands of those 
who could best use it. Only folly, or criminal favouritism, 
could under such circumstances deprive an able and indus- 
trious farmer of the land he requires, in order to give it to 
an incapable and thriftless one. All the non-farming popu- 



FREE TRADE IN LAND 259 

lation, and even the farm-labourers, would suffer enormously 
from such folly or such corruption. 

No one will probably dispute that the only practical way 
of distributing the land — the only way which would satisfy 
the people, do justice to the farmers, and screen the officials 
from the charge of corruption — would be by letting the land 
to the highest bidders. Consequently the Nationalisation 
of the Land could not possibly free our farmers from what 
they look upon as the evils of competition, and from rents 
based on the market value. On the contrary, the competi- 
tive system would at once assume its harshest features, 
because none of those advantages would be possible which 
occupiers now derive from such considerations as are peculiar 
to the land- owners in the United Kingdom, but completely 
absent in a land-owning government. The holding of land 
in these islands is not a paying business, but confers suffi- 
cient personal advantages, social prestige and political influ- 
ence, to compensate for the pecuniary sacrifices the owning 
of land involves. These circumstances, as well as the pro- 
bability of a future rise in the value of land, induce the 
British landlord to be satisfied with an interest on his capital 
which an ordinary capitalist would consider ruinous. 

The British land-owners, being able and willing to receive 
but a low interest on their capital, often place other con- 
siderations before revenue. Family traditions, the desire for 
popularity, the wish to extend their political influence, their 
feudal pride in the prosperity of their tenants, personal 
friendship towards the farmers, and many other similar con- 
siderations, materially influence a great number of British 
land-owners in their relation to farmers. 

If the land were nationalised, the farmers would have to 
deal with officials whose duty it would be to obtain the 
highest possible rent the market would allow, and who, if 



260 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

they were honest men, would not show any favour to any 
farmer, however much he needed it or deserved it, and, if 
they were dishonest, would subject the occupiers of the land 
to a system of bribes. 

No reasonable man could, therefore, believe that the 
Nationalisation of the Land could possibly benefit the 
farmers. 

The other classes which State-ownership of land is in- 
tended to benefit are the farm-labourers. But the Collecti- 
vists will agree that the prosperity of the farm-labourers is 
entirely dependent on that of the farmers, and that a system 
which increases the rents and submits the farmers to greater 
penury would re-act disastrously on the labourers. 

Who is, then, to benefit from a reform which, while it is 
nugatory to both farmers and labourers, would tend to ruin 
utterly our manufacturing and export trade, and jeopardise 
the very existence of the State ? 

We have now to consider the supposed disadvantages of 
private ownership in land. The theory of the advocates of 
Land Nationalisation is that the supply of land in the world 
being limited, and the number of human beings being con- 
stantly on the increase, those who have secured an exclusive 
right to the land would be able to charge a rent equal to the 
nett productiveness of the land, less the bare living of the 
occupier, or else the full difference between the productiveness 
of rich, fertile lands and that of poor, uncultivated lands. 
If this theory held good under all circumstances, the value 
of land in Great Britain and Ireland would have risen 
considerably in value during the time which has elapsed 
since that theory was formulated. But, much to the con- 
fusion of the Land Nationalisation party, the value of land 
in Great Britain and Ireland has not risen but fallen. In 
some parts of England at this moment it seems valueless, 



FREE TRADE IN LAND 261 

and in many cases where rents are regularly collected they 
are paid in virtue of old contracts and out of capital, but do 
not represent a profit on the value of the land. Actualities 
thus suffice to prove that the above theory does not hold 
good under all circumstances. The question, therefore, 
arises under what circumstances would such a theory hold 
good ? 

It would hold good when all land suitable for cultivation 
has been appropriated, and when all the landowners are 
willing and able to combine and form one huge Land Ring. 
In view, then, of the facts that Europe, and, to a far larger 
extent, America, Asia, Africa, and Australasia, contain enor- 
mous expanses of unutilised land, sufficient for at least a 
hundred times the present population of the globe, that 
the productiveness of land can be developed by scientific 
culture to a point to which the average cultivation in the 
world has only fragmentarily attained, and that the rate of 
the increase in the populations of the world diminishes as 
civilisation advances and wealth augments, the time when 
the demand for land will exceed the supply must be very far 
off indeed. If after a thousand, or, let us say, some hundred 
years hence, there were to be an actual scarcity of land, it is 
surely just that the people who then live should take in hand 
any adjustments that circumstances then may demand. Can 
anything be more absurd than to plunge our industries and 
all our working-classes into extreme misery, and to jeopardise 
the existence of the Empire and our national independence, 
in order to save to the people who will live in this country 
centuries hence the trouble of an administrative reform. 
Our descendants in that far-off future will be better able to 
cope with the difficulty than we can do now, as they will 
have the advantage of being face to face with its actual 
features. It may, we think, therefore be taken for granted 



262 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

that all sensible people will attach but little importance to 
arguments based on difficulties centuries ahead. 

The advocates of Land Nationalisation seem to be at one 
with us in this respect : for they do their best to ignore the 
stupendous land-reserve in our dependencies, and to concen- 
trate the attention of their followers upon these small 
islands where an actual scarcity of land promises to arrive 
within a calculable period. They are prone to argue that 
the man born in this country should not be obliged to go 
into our dependencies in order to create a homestead for 
himself and his family. Such emigration, they say, involves 
a painful desertion of the native village, and at least tem- 
porary separation from relations and friends, a dangerous 
voyage across the sea, and a risk of not succeeding in the 
new enterprise. According to some of our politicians, a 
good government should save enterprising citizens from such 
pangs and risks. 

It is surely not necessary to go into a minute refutation 
of such reasoning. Is not the life of the great majority of 
the people full of incomparably worse pangs, and must not 
millions expose themselves, not only to risks and dangers, 
but to certain loss of health and life ? What would become 
of a government that undertook to provide for a nation 
without asking for daring, enterprise and energy on the part 
of the citizens ? If every Englishman had a right to be 
provided with a farm in England, why should not every 
Londoner ask for one within the boundaries of London? 
The difference of the two follies is one only of degree. 

Besides, it is a well-known fact that, of all nations in the 
world, the English is the last to object to travel, adventure, 
enterprises abroad and risks. If there is a lull in emigration 
at present, the cause is evidently not the Englishman's, the 
Scotchman's, or the Irishman's love of his village, or his 



FREE TRADE IN LAND 

distaste for emigration. There are plenty of causes of a 
more potent nature, such as misgovernment of the Colonies, 
the improbability of making a settlement abroad pay, and 
want of capital. 

Then there is the argument of the unearned increment. 
It derives its only force from the utterly fallacious supposition 
that one man's gain is necessarily another man's loss. Our 
opponents are in the habit of representing the total amount 
of rent paid to British landlords as so much money taken 
from the producing people. Here, again, the law of the 
solidarity of humanity is entirely overlooked. The fact is 
that the interests of the landlords and the tenants are 
naturally identical, and are so to a large extent de jacto, 
even under our present economic system, which tends to make 
them antagonistic. When the farmers have good crops and 
good profits, the landlord receives his rent regularly, his land 
improves, good tenants remain on the ground, and when con- 
tracts fall due they can be renewed at a higher rent. In 
the same way anything that causes a loss to the farmer 
involves a loss to the landlord sooner or later. Though 
there are any number of examples of landlords who have 
disregarded the true interests of their tenants, these 
landlords have found, as a rule, that they have injured 
their own interests. 

When landlords have been able to tyrannise over their 
tenants and impose harsh contracts upon them, this has 
invariably been due to the fact that there have been more 
tenants wanting farms than farms offered — a state of affairs 
which would be utterly impossible if the immense tracts of 
land in our Colonies were fairly in the market. It stands to 
reason that so long as there exists within the Empire an un- 
used reserve of fertile land within the temperate zones, so 
long would the farmers be able to dictate terms to the 



264 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

landlords, if there were no obstacle placed in the way of the 
utilisation of that reserve. 

If, therefore, landlords are able to make such contracts 
with their tenants, or to let the farms on such loose terms 
as permit them to confiscate the tenants'* improvements, 
this is by no means an evil peculiar to the private tenure of 
land. It is only one of the hardships which are constantly 
arising out of a vitiated competitive system. The money- 
lender robs the borrower, because the competition for the 
money he has to lend is intense ; the sweater appropriates 
the bulk of the earnings of the be-sweated, because the com- 
petition for the work he has to give allows him to do it; 
the middle-man taxes heavily both the producer and the 
consumer, because the competition for his money, credit, and 
services makes him master of the situation ; the tenement- 
proprietor can overcrowd his cellars and garrets at ex- 
orbitant rents, because the competition for cheap lodgings 
enslaves his tenants. 

The British or Irish small farmer who, by his circum- 
stances, is compelled to take a farm without a contract, 
or else one in which he cannot protect his improvements, 
reserve his right of sale, or stipulate a reasonable rent, is in 
exactly the same position as the hundreds of millions of poor 
creatures all over the Empire who from sheer poverty are 
at the mercy of somebody. 

In face of such glaring proofs, from every part of the 
globe where British influence is extended, of the fact that 
the relation between capital and labour, which ignorance in 
olden times instituted, and which prejudice in modern times 
upholds, involves injustice and hardship for those who do 
not possess capital, it might fairly be expected from our 
politicians and reformers that they should remove the 
fundamental cause of all these evils, and not advocate patch- 



FREE TRADE IN LAND 265 

work legislation against one category of the results. But, 
unfortunately, it is a characteristic of modern legislators 
to shun first principles and fundamental causes, and to 
legislate for every separate result of some great general 
cause. 

The unearned increment is by no means dependent on 
hard contracts and unfair dealings with tenants. The 
natural development of the country constantly tends to 
raise the value of land, and the most humane and most 
generous landlord may see his wealth increase without 
himself moving a finger for the purpose. It is easy to 
persuade the farm-labourer, with a household of seven or 
eight and a weekly wage of twelve shillings, that the growth 
of another man's income by hundreds a week is one of the 
causes of his poverty. Most people are in the habit of 
looking upon wealth as so many golden sovereigns, and it 
seems natural to them that as the sovereigns cannot be in 
two places at once, the more the plutocrats have the less the 
struggling class must have. It is no wonder then that un- 
scrupulous agitators, as well as many well-meaning politicians, 
writers and clergymen, should wax eloquent on the evils 
which befall the poor through the amassing of fortunes by 
the wealthy. These good people are confirmed in this 
opinion by their primitive views regarding wealth. They 
generally look upon it as huge masses of worldly goods in 
the actual possession of the rich man. It seems so natural 
to them that if a few men monopolise most of the desirable 
things of the world there must necessarily remain little for 
the rest. 

This idea, of course, is greatly at variance with actuality. 
The wealthy man, as a rule, has a very small portion of his 
wealth under his own control. The larger portion of it, 
that which yields him an income, he invests — that is to say, 



266 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

he allows it to go out in the world against a small remunera- 
tion, — to serve as capital to those who are engaged in pro- 
ductive work, or businesses connected with it. As it is 
undeniable that the power of production of a country 
depends to a large extent on the amount of capital it 
can apply to production, every pound thus invested facili- 
tates the work of the producers — that is to say, it increases 
profits and raises wages. 

Thus, a capital of ten thousand pounds may, in the hands 
of a good business man, induce a productive undertaking 
capable of giving employment to three hundred workers, 
who, without this undertaking, might find it difficult to 
obtain any work at all. If the average wages paid are thirty 
shillings, the amount that goes to the workers is about seven 
thousand five hundred pounds, representing the benefit the 
workers obtain from the judicious investment of the capi- 
talist. If the employer's turn-over is renewed ten times a 
year, — which, with the assistance of banks is quite possible, 
and each turn-over yields a profit of 3 °/ , the manu- 
facturer makes a profit of thirty thousand pounds. 

Of this he probably invests the larger part in similar 
business, thereby causing a greater demand for workers and 
higher wages, provided that no defective legislation in the 
country vitiates the course of business. In this manner the 
ten thousand pounds invested by the capitalist, yielding him 
an income of 4 °/ ? or f° ur hundred pounds, benefits largely 
the manufacturer who uses it, and the working people who 
obtain employment, and whose wages have received an im- 
pulse towards rise. Of the three factors in production — the 
capitalist, the employer and the workers — the capitalist 
receives the smallest part, stands no chance of more profits, 
but runs a great risk of losing his capital. 

Among the many methods suggested for the improvement 



FREE TRADE IN LAND 267 

of the working- classes, the confiscation of the capitalists'* 
interest in favour of the workers often figures prominently. 
From the above example it will, however, be understood how 
little difference it would make to the working-classes if the 
capital employed in the work they are engaged upon be- 
longed to themselves, instead of being hired from a capitalist. 
There are a great many industries in which ten thousand 
pounds would suffice to keep the three hundred people 
employed. The interest at 4 °/ , paid to the capitalist, would 
amount to four hundred pounds. If, therefore, the capital 
belonged collectively to the three hundred workers, each 
would receive about one pound six shillings and eight pence 
more income during the year, or about one penny per day. 
This penny might surely be regarded as a cheap premium 
on insurance against loss. 

It is therefore manifest that the increase of capital in 
the hands of investors, far from injuring the capital-less 
sections of the community, benefits both employers and 
employed to a far larger extent than it benefits the owners 
of the capital themselves. If the relations between capital 
and labour were allowed to remain free and natural, capital 
would grow speedily both through the accumulations of the 
capitalists and the savings of the working-classes. With 
the growth of capital wages would rise, and though interest 
would probably not fall below the rate which is current 
now during the present dead-lock, it could certainly never 
assume usurious proportions. 

While on the subject, we ought to reply to the objection 
which might here be raised : namely, that if such are the 
effects from accumulation of capital, how is it that now, 
after so many years of accumulation, wages are low and so 
many workers are unemployed ? There are two reasons : 
firstly, only a very small proportion of the produced capital 



268 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

reaches the productive trades ; and, secondly, a large portion 
of the capital which should be accumulated is lost in unsuc- 
cessful undertakings abroad and bad limited liability com- 
panies at home. This severance of capital from labour, and 
this enormous destruction of capital is due to the Bank 
Charter Act, as fully explained in the chapter on Free Com- 
petition in the Supply of Capital to Labour. 

When it is recognised that the accumulation of capital in 
the hands of capitalists is not that great injury to the 
working-classes which illogical philanthropists and agitators 
take for granted, but constitutes the most direct and 
effective means of increasing the national working capital 
without which trade cannot expand and wages cannot 
rise, the attacks upon the unearned increment fall to the 
ground. 

So long as the country progresses there will be an unearned 
increment, just as there will be a rise in the price of many 
other forms of property. Wines of certain vintages that 
cannot be replaced, works of art, rare books, etc., often rise 
in value in the same manner. Those who have the foresight 
to buy or keep such things while cheap in the course of time 
reap a profit for which they have not worked, and which 
in every respect is an unearned increment. 

All successful speculation in goods and stocks partakes of 
the nature of unearned increment. So does the rise in value 
of the title of a newspaper, of a trade mark, the profits on 
patents, and even the bonuses of life insurance policies. 

What kind of legislation would it be that would deprive 
a man of the additional value which such land acquires, 
either bought at a high price with the view to a rise, or else 
inherited from ancestors who have kept the land in spite of 
tempting offers to sell, and at the same time allow another 
man to keep all the profit he has made by buying some 



FREE TRADE IN LAND 269 

cargoes of corn, when corn was cheap, and selling them when 
corn was dear. 

Even if we make up our minds to legislate in a topsy- 
turvy fashion, without reference to justice and equity, the 
confiscation of unearned increment in land would still present 
almost insurmountable difficulties. If it be decided that the 
owner is not the man who should be benefited by the rise in 
the value of land, or any other form of property, the question 
arises, To whom is such unearned increment to go ? If we 
give it to the State or the commune, we produce that stag- 
nation in production and that lowering of wages, which we 
have already described as an inevitable economic consequence 
of the authoritative spending of capital. Besides, we should 
lower the working-capital of the nation : for capital once 
handed over to government can never be returned into the 
channels of that production on which the people live. 

It may be employed in useful or ornamental public build- 
ings, or even in productive or quasi-productive enterprises 
under the management of the authorities, but this would 
involve so many deliberate steps towards Socialism. The 
staff of officials would have to be increased, private under- 
takings would suffer from government competition, and all 
the earnings of the people would be reduced. The wages 
of such workers as were employed by the government or 
municipality might be, and from political considerations 
would be, raised, but the wages of all the other workers in 
the district would be lowered in a far larger proportion. In 
short, the introduction of a Socialistic feature would, as it 
always has done, act as a clog in the mechanism of free 
division of labour, and by creating stagnation and economic 
anomalies, impel the nation still further in the direction of 
complete Socialism, until unmitigated slavery under the State 
had been established. 



270 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

If the unearned increments, instead of going to the govern- 
ment, were distributed among the inhabitants of the country, 
the results would be as bad. Such distribution would only 
to a small extent, if at all, increase the working capital of 
the nation, because only a small percentage of the people 
have the necessary qualification for saving and accumulating. 
Moreover such State charities must necessarily, as they have 
ever done, exercise a most demoralising influence upon the 
people, and terribly curtail the production of wealth. Then 
there would always be such questions as : Who is to preside 
at the distribution ? What method should be followed ? 
Should the rich have as much as the poor ? the spendthrift 
as much as the thrifty ? What should qualify or disqualify 
the individuals for the bounty? The squabbles, the in- 
trigues and the party manoeuvres which such distribution 
of the unearned increment could not fail to produce, would 
fearfully disorganise honest industry, and it would not be 
long before every vestige of unearned increment would dis- 
appear. The United Kingdom itself is at this moment an ex- 
ample of the power of bad legislation to bring about loss and 
decline in values where everything else warrants increments. 

Those Collectivists who are always so prone to fall back 
on the methods of Domestic Economy, in order to remedy 
some special evil, hardly ever give a serious thought to the 
chief aim of civilisation — the elevation of man — and seem 
quite content to treat humanity as so much cattle for the 
shelter and food of which everything else should be sacrificed. 
Were it really wise, conducive to happiness, and compatible 
with the existence of the State, to save all the inhabitants of 
these islands from the bulk of their present toil, and to allow 
them to live comfortably, not to say luxuriously, such an 
object might very likely be accomplished, but hardly by the 
methods which our Collectivists advocate. 



FREE TRADE IN LAND 271 

To more speedily achieve their aim, we should advise 
them to apply the methods of Domestic Economy, not to 
Great Britain and Ireland, but to our Indian and African 
possessions. There would be scarcely any resistance on 
the part of the native races, and if the compulsory 
work were accompanied by good treatment and whole- 
some food, and a few of those advantages which our 
Socialists expect from a fatherly government, the material 
condition of the natives in India and Africa would not 
be worse than it is now. By concentrating into one ad- 
ministration all the land and all the wealth of our Indian 
and African possessions, as well as all the working power of 
the inhabitants, we should have a mechanism for production 
which might be developed to an enormous potency. In 
the city of London could be found hundreds of business 
men, each of whom could, if placed at the head of this 
wealth-producing mechanism, undertake to pour wealth into 
Great Britain and Ireland sufficient to relieve the inhabi- 
tants of the greater portion of their exertions, and at the 
same time allow them to live in comfort and luxury. By 
encouraging the increase of population in the producing 
dependencies, and perhaps by importing one hundred million 
Chinese, the proportion of the workers in India and Africa 
to the consumers in Great Britain might be raised up to 
fifteen to one; that is to say, each of us in these islands 
would, in place of living on his own earnings, live on the 
wealth produced by fifteen others working on fertile soil in 
an intensely fertile climate, with the best implements and 
machinery, and the best possible administration. 

To accomplish the aims of our Collectivists in this manner 
would be infinitely more easy than by imposing, as they 
would fain do, the cumbrous system of slavery under govern- 
ment upon the people of these islands. But the results 



272 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

would be equally disastrous to the cause of civilisation. To 
supply human beings with all their material needs without 
exertion, forethought, risk and self-control on their part, 
would manifestly sap the only foundations which have been 
laid for the elevation of the human race. 

Discussions with Collectivists would be so much more 
satisfactory if they would make up their minds as to what 
their real aim is. Those of them who have any genuine faith 
in humanity would then come to recognise that the moral, 
ethical and physical elevation of our race should be our 
goal, that individual liberty is the indispensable condition 
for such progress, and that the prosperity of the individual 
— the aim which this work is intended to further — is only 
important in so far as it adds to the religious, political and 
social liberty of the people that most vital of all liberties — 
-economic liberty. 

From whatever side we thus regard the much complained 
of evils of the unearned increment, we find that they are, as 
the other evils, attributed to private ownership in land, 
mostly imaginary, and that the anomalies complained of are 
the result of other causes. 

One of the objects which the Collectivists hope to 
attain by relaxing the land-owner's hold on his land is 
the creation of small holdings. It is often taken for 
granted that the introduction of small holdings is the 
panacea against agricultural depression and many other 
economic anomalies, and it is only in accordance with the 
protective spirit of the time that the compulsory introduc- 
tion of small holdings should be advocated. The arguments 
in favour of the system are drawn from other countries, 
especially from France, where the peasants are described as 
a thrifty, prosperous, contented, conservative class. The 
recent economic vagaries of the French government have 







FREE TRADE IN LAND 273 

done much to paralyse the thrift and to destroy the prosperity 
of these small holders, but, as far as their contentment, 
their Conservatism is concerned, they yet remain a tempting 
example to Conservative politicians. When France enjoyed 
partial Free Trade, the small cultivators throve. This was, 
however, not due to any special virtue of small holdings, 
but chiefly to the French banquier system, which enor- 
mously favoured production, as we have already explained 
in another chapter. 

Nor will any one assert that the development of British 
agriculture can be regarded as a ' frightful example , of the 
result of large holdings. Not many years ago England, and 
perhaps still more Scotland, held with regard to agriculture 
the foremost place in the world. English products stood 
high as to quality. Seeds, breeding animals, and agricul- 
tural implements were exported from England to every part 
of the globe. Young agriculturists from Russia, Germany 
and the Scandinavian countries, became apprenticed to 
English and Scotch farmers. The difficulties of British 
agriculture in no way sprang from the largeness of the hold- 
ings, but from territorial and economic advantages possessed 
by foreign competitors, and it may be said without fasti- 
diousness that the worst competition was experienced from 
foreign farmers with far larger holdings than the majority 
of British farms. 

The question of large holdings or small holdings is one 
that cannot be settled in the same way for all kinds of land 
and under all sorts of circumstances. Farming experts will 
agree that there are soils and circumstances which would 
render farming on a large scale more profitable than small 
farming, and vice versa, and if that be so, the best Land 
System would be one allowing of such a size of farm as 
would yield the largest profit. 



274 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

If there be any truth in the assertion of the Collectivists 
— and we believe there is — that owners of land are apt to 
charge as high a rent as they can possibly get, the much 
decried landlordism would be the best system for the regu- 
lation of the size of farms on the basis of relative pro- 
ductiveness. Any reasonable landlord would of course 
let his land to the class of people who, everything else 
being equal, are willing to pay the highest rent, and, if 
the small farmer can pay a higher rent than the large 
farmer, the landlord would certainly do his best to offer 
small farms. 

The opponents of private ownership in land obtain a con- 
siderable hearing by the confusion of two distinct ideas : 
namely, the idea of small farms and la petite culture, or, to 
use an English expression, small farming. The one does 
not necessarily presuppose the other. Small farming, that 
is to say, the production of vegetables, fruit, flowers, poultry, 
milk, butter, cheese, honey, etc., can be carried on just as 
well, if not better, on a large scale as on a small, and if 
practice does not confirm this so completely as it should, it 
is because the economic causes which militate generally 
against small culture in this country tell in a more decided 
manner in large enterprises. There can be no doubt that 
the prosperity of British farming must be sought in the 
direction of small farming. The soil and the climate are 
suitable ; fertilisers are easily obtained. The market is even 
now enormous, though the consumption of the above-men- 
tioned products is very far from being what it might be 
when every man, woman and child is by prosperous trade 
enabled to consume as much as they need. 

The competitors of the British small farmers — the foreign 
farmers who now supply this country with the most profit- 
able farm products — live in America, Australia, the south 



FREE TRADE IN LAND 275 

of Europe, Algiers, Germany, Russia and the Scandinavian 
countries, and the expense of bringing their products into 
the centres of manufacture ought to give the British farmers 
enormous advantages. 

The fact that, in spite of all, British farmers cannot com- 
pete with the foreign ones is frequently attributed to private 
ownership in land. Such an opinion is not supported by 
any logical argument, and has, in the majority of cases, 
been adopted because no other solution of the enigma can 
be found. But to those who have read our chapter on 
banking and credit, it will be evident that our economic 
system — such as Bank Monopoly renders it — raises far more 
real formidable obstacles to la petite culture in the United 
Kingdom than the hazy ones excogitated by the votaries of 
Land Confiscation. 

Even slight reflection will at once show that the some- 
what general adoption of small farming in this country 
would imply the employment of considerably more men, 
women, and children than at present, certainly at higher 
wages, and that consequently the cash expenditure of the 
farmer would assume larger proportions. From where is he 
to be supplied with capital, credit and cash, in a country 
where capital-distributing banking is prohibited ? Any 
farmers who would rashly take the advice of some of our 
professional politicians, and go in heavily for fruits and 
jams, would very soon find themselves in the clutches of the 
only beneficiary of our economic system, the protected and 
pampered advertising usurer. 

It ought also to be clear to every man who has given any 
thought to business and finance, that the presence in this 
country of so large an additional quantity of gold — as the 
general adoption of la petite culture would involve, so long 
as credit-instruments suitable to the productive trades are 



276 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

prohibited — would raise the cost of production considerably 
above the price of sale. 

With such palpable impediments to profitable farming, 
we ought not to wonder at the present depression, but 
rather at the gallant fight the farmers have made. The 
marvel is that British farming is not completely extinct. 
There is certainly no occasion to interfere with private 
ownership of land until we have seen how this system would 
work with fair and rational banking methods. 

But even when it has been established that the system 
of private ownership in land meets the requirements of 
farmers, labourers, and the nation at large in a manner that 
cannot be approached by any other system, there remains a 
considerable scope for Land Reform in this country. Just 
as the extremists, who are supposed to advocate the cause 
of the masses, would interfere with ownership in land in 
favour of their clients, so the aristocracy of the past has 
violated the principle of individual liberty as applied to 
the ownership in land. 

Not only our legislation regarding land, but all legisla- 
tion, was ever and is still carried on in a haphazard manner, 
regardless of system and first principles. The reason of this 
is that there has been no agreement regarding the chief pur- 
pose of legislation. Each Parliament, even each legislator, 
strives for a particular purpose, and aims at carrying it as 
far as circumstances allow. The real aims of legislation 
have changed with the times. To benefit the sovereign, the 
reigning family, the privileged classes, and finally the work- 
ing people, has in turn been the object of legislation. 
Even in our days we constantly see one set of legislators 
ostentatiously striving to benefit one class, while another set 
is striving to benefit another class, and all the time it is 
impossible to tell how many private motives are at play. 







FREE TRADE IN LAND 277 

The absence of system and the haziness of the aims naturally 
lead to legislation by fits and starts, generally prompted by 
some special incidents supposed to be calling for special 
legislation. In this manner each enactment has an extremely 
limited scope, and often clashes with previous enactments. 

Thus if, for example, a new system of draining agri- 
cultural land were invented, it might be found that 
the law relating to drainage did not provide for cases 
arising out of the new system. Under such circumstances it 
might be supposed that our legislators, finding the mass of 
enactments regarding the improvement in land bulky, com- 
plicated, and yet insufficient, would replace the whole mass 
of these acts by one simple and complete law covering all 
kinds of improvements in land. But, for reasons which 
perhaps expert law officers might be able to explain, though 
to the average man utterly incomprehensible, they would 
leave all the old enactments in force and complicate the 
whole question by adding a new, special act calculated to 
meet the cases arising out of the new drainage system. 

The laws regarding the tenure of land having accumulated 
for centuries in this fashion, the treatment of the subject 
from a legal point of view ought to devolve upon experts in 
law. Here we deal only with the economic aspect of the 
Land Question, which after all is the more vital. 

The tendency of past legislation by landlords in favour of 
landlords has been to create privileges for the owners of 
land. The object was not always to immediately benefit 
the actual holder. The interests of his descendants and the 
interests of landowners as a caste ever strongly influenced 
British land legislation. A traditional feudal bias, exercising 
a distinct sway over the minds of the British upper classes, 
and to some extent over the whole nation, the interests 
which land legislation strove to safeguard were as often 



278 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

political and social as pecuniary. As the heir to the throne 
inherited the kingdom, so it was considered fair and natural 
that the heir of the noble should inherit his father's fief 
intact, with all the privileges, the prestige, and the power 
it involved. 

It is conceivable that this system, despite the injustice 
and hardships on younger sons and daughters involved in 
it, when regarded from the modern point of view, should 
have great attractions for aristocracies at all times. The 
feudal prestige of the family was maintained, the quasi-royal 
position was perpetuated, and the pecuniary privations of 
the younger branches were more than compensated for by 
the advantages which the head of the family, in his brilliant 
and influential position, could secure to all its members. 

While the equal division of the real estate between all 
the children of a landed proprietor would, in a few genera- 
tions, reduce the property to an insignificant competency 
for each member of a family — easily lost or squandered — 
the patronage of the head, when in possession of the whole 
property, could easily secure for his portionless relations 
positions and appointments remunerative enough to form 
the nucleus of new large estates. 

Already in the middle of the century it was difficult for 
Continental students of politics to reconcile the progress of 
democratic influence in Great Britain, of the love of liberty 
of the English people, and of the then increasing well-being 
of our working-classes, with a land system of a pronounced 
feudal nature, and calculated to perpetuate the aristocratic 
influence. The practical harmony, not to say the remark- 
able good feeling, existing in Great Britain between the 
land -owning and the working classes, clashed with the 
theories of the Continental democrats, who, if they had not 
already accepted the Socialistic views regarding the tenure 



FREE TRADE IN LAND 279 

of land, attached an importance to the principle of equal 
right to the land for all, or Free Trade in Land. On the 
Continent Cobden was constantly asked to explain the 
enigma, and in reply he frequently stated his belief that a 
sweeping Land Reform was imminent in this country. 

But this, like many other predictions of the Free Trade 
pioneers, was not fulfilled. The objections to our system of 
land tenure were entirely theoretical — conclusions arrived at 
through exact reasoning though from fallacious premisses. 
On the other hand, the presence in the country of an enor- 
mously wealthy aristocracy offered advantages to the other 
classes which every-day life practically demonstrated. These 
advantages are too well known to require enumeration, and 
are, moreover, partly included in those of a large national 
working capital already referred to. 

But it may be useful to point out here that British indus- 
try has benefited very considerably from the feudal features 
in our land system in a manner that is far from being appre- 
ciated. The presence in this country of wealthy buyers and 
consumers of high-class goods has no doubt acted as a spur to 
our manufacturers and craftsmen to concentrate their energy 
and ingenuity towards the attainment of a high standard of 
quality. Not only has the example of the British aristo- 
cracy popularised the taste for good qualities throughout 
the nation, and inculcated the lesson that cheap goods are 
the dearest, but obtained for our products a reputation for 
excellence both at home and abroad — a reputation which 
did not begin to fade until the silliest of all silly acts, the 
Merchandise Marks Act, was promulgated. 

While thus the advocates of Land Nationalisation are 
entirely out of court, and while the enemies of our land 
system in its present form have shown themselves power- 
fully biassed, it would be irrational to jump to the conclusion 



280 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

that no legislative reform is required with regard to the 
land. Nothing that we have said, or that might be said, 
would dispose of the fact that easy access to land for all 
citizens is favourable to general prosperity. But it is not 
of such vital importance as to out-balance the general 
tendency towards decay which must set in when private 
ownership in land is threatened. 

If, therefore, general prosperity be the object, the access to 
land should be facilitated by means which, instead of in- 
fringing the right of ownership, and consequently personal 
liberty, should rather tend to consolidate these two indis- 
pensable conditions for a progressing civilisation. 

It stands to reason that the best means of multiplying 
small holdings should, and naturally does, strengthen the 
owner's hold upon his land : for any measures tending to 
render ownership more conditional and more uncertain would 
necessarily reduce the usefulness and attractiveness of owner- 
ship. The advocates of Land Confiscation schemes seem to 
take for granted that the undermining of private ownership 
would be detrimental only to the large landowners and not 
to the small. As, however, it is not likely that the British 
nation would sanction one law for the large landowners and 
one for the small, and as the drawing of the line between the 
two categories would amount to a practical impossibility, all 
the hardships and persecution inflicted on landowners would 
fall on the large and small alike. If, therefore, we were to 
attempt to increase the small number of owners by making 
ownership more uncertain, we should probably deter small 
capitalists from investing in land and land improvement to 
a greater extent than we should have encouraged them. 

Finding, then, that the law cannot possibly favour a man 
in his capacity of a buyer of land except by injuring him 
exactly in the same proportion in his capacity of a holder 



FREE TRADE IN LAND 281 

and an eventual seller, the only just and economically sound 
course is that of allowing buyers and sellers to arrange their 
own bargains : that is to say, to render trade in land free. 

The introduction of what may fairly be called Free Trade 
in Land would necessarily involve the abolition of all the 
enactments which have been introduced with the object of 
giving to landlords rights which absolute ownership does not 
confer, be they actually beneficial to the landlords or not. 

The repeal of such enactments would not inflict anything 
like the hardships which landed proprietors would at first 
anticipate, and the small sacrifices would be largely compen- 
sated for by strengthening of land-ownership all round. If 
we take for granted that Free Trade in Land were to be 
introduced as part and parcel of a complete Individualist 
programme, there can of course be no question of actual 
sacrifice on the part of landowners : for the escape from the 
Confiscation methods which have already been introduced 
into this country by the late Parliament, and already largely 
applied in Ireland, would represent a gain to landowners 
incomparably greater than any surrender on their part in- 
volved in Free Trade in Land. 

To substitute such peculiarities in our land system as 
primogeniture, entail, etc., for a more absolute ownership 
would, even apart from political considerations, probably 
benefit the actual owners more than it would harm them. 

As to the landowners, regarded as a caste, the effects of the 
change would not be so great as most people seem to 
imagine ; for the owner would be absolutely free to deal 
with his land in all the ways open to other Englishmen as 
to the disposal of property other than land. He would be 
absolutely free to will his estates to his eldest son, who 
would, therefore, be entirely unaffected by the reform. There 
would be some advantage in allowing a parent to exercise 



282 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

his discretion with regard to his heir, and if this privilege 
results in placing the large estates in the kingdom in better 
hands than is now sometimes the case, the whole country 
would certainly benefit. Whether the strengthening of 
paternal influence in this manner be beneficial or otherwise 
is a question not easy to answer, and would certainly depend 
upon the circumstances of each case. 

The reform might appear to threaten the impoverishment 
of our landed aristocracy in the same manner as Continental 
aristocracies have been impoverished. But the landowners 
themselves can through their absolute ownership guard 
against any such contingency — a contingency, moreover, less 
likely to happen in modern times and in the future than it 
was in the past. The landed aristocracy, especially under a 
strictly Individualist system, when the revenue from land 
and other sources is likely to rise steadily, would have oppor- 
tunities of accumulating their worldly possessions at a rate 
unattained in the past. The Free Trade in Land reform 
would confer a host of other advantages on landlords both 
as individuals and as a caste, for an analysis of which there 
is no space in these pages. 

But before leaving the subject we must refer to one advan- 
tage which must exercise a powerful influence on all con- 
scientious landlords. The Free Trade in Land reform would 
lift them out of a position which our present economic system 
has in the eyes of the world and in their own rendered in- 
compatible with moral responsibility and Christian duty. 
Probably only the most callous of our millionaires can go 
on accumulating wealth and spending it in luxuries and 
pleasure on themselves and their families, while millions of 
destitute children have their health and future life ruined 
by sheer want, and while millions of struggling men and 
women are driven to despair, degradation and vice for lack 



FREE TRADE IN LAND 

of timely aid. The majority of the wealthy feel acutely 
their responsibility, and would no doubt hail with delight 
the advent of a system in which the immense privileges 
they enjoy would form a beneficial, if not an indispensable, 
factor. 

But Free Trade in Land cannot be established without a 
radical change in our system of the transfer of land. The 
necessity for reform in this respect is already widely acknow- 
ledged, and as the question is already before Parliament, 
there is no need to deal with it fully here. We can only 
express the hope that it will be dealt with, not in the usual 
fragmentary, superficial and one-sided fashion, but treated 
as an essential step towards the adoption of a complete 
Individualist system demanded by the impoverished masses 
and the conscientious wealthy classes alike. 



X 

THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE EMPIRE 

The founders and rulers of such ancient Empires as the 
Assyrian, the Egyptian and the Persian inaugurated a 
foreign policy, which through later Empires, such as the 
Greek and the Roman and the mediaeval and modern States, 
has been transmitted to the dynasties and statesmen of our 
days. This policy was founded upon the desire of the 
rulers to extend their sway and to defend themselves against 
other potentates animated by the same hunger for conquest. 
The means employed were military armaments, open attacks 
upon rival States, the constant watchfulness against the 
acquirement of special advantages by any State, and intrigues 
destined to create enmity between such States as could not be 
conquered, and one day might become dangerous opponents. 
In this foreign policy the welfare of the people was not con- 
sidered, at least no more than was absolutely necessary to 
keep the dynasty in power and the army in an effective 
state. 

During the migratory period in Europe, many a war- 
like onslaught originated from the desire among the migrat- 
ing tribes to better their condition, but as soon as they 
had settled down and founded a State, the traditional 
foreign policy was resumed. To destroy the liberty, and 
even the prosperity, of surrounding nations was counted 
a glorious thing, and even such recent conquerors as Napo- 



THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE EMPIRE 285 

leon i. were influenced in their politics by the views of 
Alexander the Great and Caesar. 

When in modern times the people gradually acquired 
greater influence over their own destiny as a nation, and 
when sovereigns and statesmen were compelled constantly to 
have the phrase ' the welfare of the people ' on the tip of 
the tongue, it might have been expected that the old foreign 
policy would have given place to one fraught with less 
misery to humanity. 

But such has not been the case. If we except the United 
States of America, the foreign policy of all civilised States 
has remained very much what it was — a constant scheming 
to secure advantages for one country at the expense of 
another, to acquire more territory, to form defensive and 
offensive alliances for the resistance of attacks, to weaken 
possible opponents, and generally to assume an attitude of 
defiance and armed menace towards each other. 

The enormous sacrifices which such a foreign policy entails 
on the peoples, and the endless misery and suffering it 
creates, have so far failed to inspire the masses of Europe 
with any marked desire to inaugurate a foreign policy more 
conducive to their happiness. This passive submission to 
unnecessary evil is greatly due to the diplomacy of modern 
statesmen. To their old mission of harming foreign sove- 
reigns as much as possible for the benefit of their own, they 
have had to add another, namely, to keep the ruling dynas- 
ties in power, and to reserve for them as much as possible of 
that ancient despotism which counted the masses of the 
people as nothing. 

In order to accomplish this mission, it was necessary to 
find a pretext for the maintenance of huge armies, military 
supremacy, and 6 strong government. 1 For this purpose the 
continuance of the old traditional foreign policy served 



286 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

admirably. It became important to inspire the people 
with the belief that foreign nations were their natural 
enemies only waiting their opportunity to destroy them. 
Consciously and unconsciously — by cunning diplomacy or by 
traditional prejudice — a host of methods has been and is 
applied in order to inoculate the peoples with this belief. 
History books used in the schools deal almost exclusively 
with the doings of the sovereign and the army, glorifying 
battles and especially conquests. The most miserable reason- 
ing is resorted to in order to demonstrate that some great 
good has come to one nation through the infliction of a great 
injury on another. Defeats of other nations are celebrated 
by national fetes, and large armaments and even wars are 
represented as indispensable to the maintenance of civilisa- 
tion. In the absence of actual war the military spirit is 
kept alive by simulations of war — no doubt necessary from a 
military point of view — where one army-corps, or one fleet, 
evidently represents that of some neighbouring country. 

As if this were not sufficient to keep up an unhealthy 
international animosity, modern diplomatists have gladly 
seized such opportunities as spurious Economy offers for 
inflaming national hatred. The people in every country are 
made to believe that only through injuring the industry of 
other nations can they develop their own, and that only by 
curtailing the trade of their neighbours can they expand 
theirs. 

How utterly false such reasoning is we have already de- 
monstrated, but reasoning has so little power over prejudice 
that those interested in maintaining national hatred experi- 
ence but little opposition when they advocate trade-hamper- 
ing measures in order to harm a foreign country. 

By such means has the old foreign policy maintained its 
prestige to such an extent that some of its teachings have 



THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE EMPIRE 287 

been blindly accepted. Among these the principle is pro- 
minent which encourages the conquest of new territories. 

It is, therefore, not surprising that it should have called 
forth a strong protest from clear-sighted and intelligent 
Englishmen. In the middle of this century, a Party arose 
to protest against war and conquest and to teach the world 
that the solidarity of humanity is the fundamental law of 
Economy and Sociology, and that happiness and prosperity 
could best be attained by bringing all international relations 
into harmony with it. Maybe the propagators of the new 
truth carried their principles too far, or maybe they did not 
defend them in the right manner : for, after having stamped 
their ideas on the national politics of the time, the Peace 
Party have lost their influence over the national mind and 
have been nicknamed the Peace-at-any-price Party. 

As long as the Peace Party led public opinion in Great 
Britain, the maintenance and consolidation of the Empire 
were looked upon as the policy of the classes rather than of 
the masses. If to-day we meet with an Englishman who 
attaches but little importance to our Possessions, he generally 
belongs to the remnant of the old Little England Party or 
else to the extreme Liberal Party whose opinions are biassed 
by Socialistic tendencies. The extreme wings of the Liberals 
and the Socialists are naturally slow to admit that the 
Empire is indispensable to the welfare of the British nation, 
because they are in the habit — or perhaps it suits their style 
of reasoning — of dwelling, when speaking of a better distri- 
bution of wealth, rather on that small amount of riches which 
actually exists than on the immense future wealth which 
would result from a rational Imperial policy. 

Though all that the old Peace Party said in favour of 
general disarmament, peace, and a harmonious co-operation 
between the nations, remains undeniably true, affairs out- 



288 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

side the United Kingdom have developed so unexpectedly, 
contrary to the expectations of the Cobden school, that no 
true patriot and no friend of our race should regard the 
maintenance of the Empire with indifference. For, though 
the old style of foreign policy retains its hold on the people's 
minds throughout Europe, and to no small extent throughout 
these islands, it cannot be denied that to-day we can point 
to reasons for a jealous maintenance of the Empire, and even 
for its latest extensions, which have nothing to do with old 
prejudices. 

We are now face to face with actualities, which leave the 
Little Englanders no excuse for their indifference towards the 
Empire. Almost all foreign countries are persisting in a 
protective policy and other ruinous economic measures, which 
in many ways limit their commerce with the United King- 
dom. They seem bent on impoverishing their masses to 
such an extent as to enormously decrease their consuming 
power, and consequently their need of British goods. If the 
anti-economic systems of the foreign governments are con- 
tinued much longer, the respective countries will count as 
very small factors in the universal co-operation, and will lose 
almost all their significance as markets for British goods. 
Under such circumstances there are only two roads open to 
Great Britain : we must either be prepared to exist with a 
small and dwindling foreign trade, or we must keep in our 
own grasp open markets, progressing territories, and countries 
capable of co-operation with Great Britain. 

The first alternative need hardly be considered. Produc- 
ing as Great Britain does only half of the food stuffs required 
under the present circumstances, while the great bulk of the 
people, from sheer want, consume abnormally little, large 
imports are a sine qua non to the maintenance of our present 
small degree of prosperity, and the only possible means of 



THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE EMPIRE 289 

attaining a general state of well-being. The tendencies of 
our democracy to indulge in dreams of isolated labour a la 
Prince Kropotkine, or pastoral primitiveness a la Rusk in, 
will not stand the test of the statisticians. While there 
may be much truth in what has been said about la petite 
culture, intense cultivation, and the power of spade labour, 
it can hardly be considered a serious proposition that we 
should return to the process of hand-spinning and hand- 
weaving, and discard the use of the thousands of labour- 
saving machines from which alone, under a sound economic 
system, that ease of toil and abundance of leisure can be 
obtained which our sentimental economists expect to be the 
result of opposite methods. If we asked them, they would 
confess that their objections to a system of labour including 
powerful machinery spring exclusively from their inability 
to dissociate machinery from the tyranny of capital. They 
have no idea that the monopolising by capitalists of the 
benefits of machinery is unnatural, contrary to the order of 
things, and the result of the artificial prohibition of free 
competition in the supply of capital to labour. 

When it is found that the enormous saving of toil, dis- 
comfort, and vital power which machinery affords can, by a 
sound system of economy, be made to benefit the workers at 
least as much as the capitalists, we shall hear no more 
clamours for the abolition of machinery and wholesale manu- 
facture. 

A return, then, to the primitive, not to say savage, method 
of production — without machinery and factories — being an 
impracticable dream, based on misconception, there remains 
only the other alternative of increasing the resources of our 
ever-increasing population — namely, of utilising the immense 
latent wealth, the vast expanses of soil, and the productive 
climes in our Possessions all over the globe. 



290 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

Those of our politicians and agitators who persistently 
ignore the practically boundless reserve of land and wealth 
which our Possessions afford are probably, consciously or 
unconsciously, actuated by the desire to turn such questions 
as future over-population, scarcity of land, and scarcity of 
employment, into so many arguments in favour of State 
interference with private property. 

Without such bias it seems hardly possible that any man 
in the present stage of our civilisation could shut his eyes to 
the many benefits our Colonies and Dependencies are capable 
of conferring on our race. These Possessions are in every 
way wonderfully suited for a close co-operation with the 
mother country. What we produce they consume, and vice 
versa. While the United Kingdom has an ample popula- 
tion and only a small supply of land, our Possessions have 
immense tracts of fertile soil, and in most cases an extremely 
scanty population. While our climate is congenial to a 
hardy, enterprising and leading race, the climate of some of 
our Possessions favours races of a more indolent and submis- 
sive character, unlikely to reject British guidance, especially 
if we confer upon them the great blessings of individual 
liberty and prosperity. 

Great Britain thus has the most valid reasons for main- 
taining its splendid Empire intact, well consolidated, and 
prosperous. 

Just as the motives for the maintenance, and sometimes for 
the expansion, of the Empire are vastly different from those 
which are quoted in support of the old-fashioned foreign 
policy of foreign States, so the aims of the development and 
the maintenance of the Empire are different. Whatever the 
object of the British government was during the last wars 
with France and Holland, it is certain that our colonial 
policy is not now shaped with the view of damaging other 



THE CONSOLIDATION^ THE EMPIRE 291 

States. If our politicians have not yet completely grasped 
the important truth that each step of progress achieved by 
any country will react favourably on the United Kingdom, 
they are at least convinced of the value of peace and good 
understanding with other powers, and have realised that we 
are in possession of more territories than we are likely to 
require even thousands of years hence. 

As to the races which have come under British influence, 
their condition is considerably improved, thanks to better 
order, better justice, and better organisation in every respect 
introduced by British rule, and they are never subjected to 
that painful and irritating process of being forcibly enrolled 
into the nationality of their conquerors, which on the Con- 
tinent is still considered an object worth striving for. 

We have intentionally mentioned the beneficial influence 
which British dominion exercises over other races, so that it 
may be clear that while the feeling of self-preservation and 
the desire for wealth urge us to carefully guard our Empire, 
there cannot possibly be any conscientious scruples against 
such a policy. At the same time, however, we must point 
out that the supremacy exercised by the British nation will 
only be justifiable so long as our aims are beneficial not only 
to the races included in the Empire but to humanity at 
large. There is no need for that sceptical, misanthropic 
section of the community, ever ready to sacrifice everything 
and everybody to British interests, to look askance at the 
above expressed opinion ; for nothing is more conducive to 
the prosperity of every class in the United Kingdom than to 
further civilisation, well-being, and genuine progress among 
the races that are to be our customers and co-operators. 

If thus self-interest, commercial considerations, and moral 
duty alike bid us safeguard and develop that large part 
of the globe which historical evolution and force of circum- 



292 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

stances, rather than British arms, have placed under our pro- 
tection and guidance, but little heed need be given to that 
minority in these islands which, under the influence of pre- 
judice, economic bias, or political ambition, clamours for 
the disintegration of the Empire. We may even take for 
granted that there is a practical unanimity throughout the 
British domains that the Empire should be maintained and 
consolidated. 

While speeches and literary contributions, even when they 
emanate from the leaders of those politicians who once 
formed a Little England Party, constantly and ostenta- 
tiously extol the value of our Empire and the importance of 
cementing its constituent parts, it is only too evident that 
the means by which such cementing should be accomplished 
are not within the grasp of these speakers and writers. The 
solution of other questions is generally delayed and com- 
plicated by the great variety of solving methods proffered ; 
but, as to the best manner of consolidating the Empire, no 
suggestion of a definite and practical character has been 
forthcoming. 

We have had vague hints regarding Imperial Federation, 
but as to the practical form it should take, and, what is 
worse, the principles upon which it should be based, they 
have not been agreed upon, and have not even been discussed. 
In this matter, as in many others, politicians have preferred 
the easier and more irresponsible work of propagating hazy 
and sentimental ideas. As with Home Rule, Socialism, 
Bimetallism, and other intangible panaceas, so with Imperi- 
alism: when it is found that every attempt at practical 
realisation raises a host of apparently insurmountable diffi- 
culties, anomalies and drawbacks, when every attempt at 
systematising discloses irreconcileable differences of opinion 
— when practical work thus becomes hopeless and discourag- 



THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE EMPIRE 293 

ing, the would-be reformers fall back upon the more congenial 
mission of ' getting the principle accepted.'' They are prone to 
leave the actual execution to others, to the collective wisdom 
of Parliament, to men of genius which human progress is 
expected to produce, or to future generations some centuries 
hence. Surely we have had enough of the mere propaganda 
of the Imperalist idea. It is time to show the method by 
which the idea can be realised, and to agree upon the prin- 
ciples which should underlie such realisation. 

To enter here into the constitutional, legal and admini- 
strative features of a closer union between the component 
parts of the Empire would be outside the scope of this work, 
and might well be the subject of a separate work, but it 
behoves us to dwell somewhat on the principles that should 
underlie an Imperial Constitution. All the more so as a 
strong and cohesive Empire is one of the great aims which 
rational Individualism brings within our reach. The ties 
which at present hold the Empire together are community 
of race and community of language with our Colonies, and 
British military supremacy in our dependencies. The ties 
of race and language will, as was the case with America, 
gradually slacken as each colony builds up its history, creates 
its own literature, develops its own universities, fosters its 
own bureaucracy, and forms its own political parties. The 
compulsory tie, represented by cannon and bayonet, though 
now sufficiently reliable in our dependencies, will be more 
and more difficult to maintain in efficiency as civilisation 
and instruction advance among the native races, as the 
vernacular press develops in power and influence, and as 
progress and advancing scepticism weaken religious animosity 
between the different creeds. 

The solution of the problem of Imperialism must begin 
by finding ties stronger than those now existing, and at the 



294 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

same time capable of outlasting present circumstances, and 
of remaining acceptable to the masses in our Colonies and 
dependencies however rapidly they progress. 

Individualism alone can supply such ties. Nothing is 
more conducive to the strengthening of the desire of our 
Colonies and dependencies to remain closely united to the 
Empire than the conviction that in such a union they will 
find the best possible guarantees for liberty, prosperity and 
universal respect. 

We live in a period when old prejudices, ideas, and blindly 
accepted dogmas are constantly clashing with experience, 
and consequently losing their hold on men's minds. Not 
long ago a large majority of politicians would have hailed a 
tyrannical mob government as a step towards greater liberty. 
Not long ago a large proportion of our working-classes 
shared the opinion with the French Democracy that liberty 
was identical with a Republican form of government ; that 
change of masters, not the abolition of masters, was the road 
to freedom; that the setting up of bureaucratic tyranny, 
slavery under the State, and the reduction of the individual 
to a will-less piece of mechanism in the social machinery, 
would in some miraculous way in the aggregate secure 
liberty for the people. 

There have been plenty of signs lately in Great Britain 
that the people have profited by the object-lesson furnished 
by the American Republics, the short-lived French Commune, 
and the present Republic in France, and that they are not 
willing to submit to government tyranny and bureaucratic 
meddlings simply because these nostrums have been labelled 
and emblazoned with attractive names. 

The Englishman's love of liberty is not of the sentimental 
kind. However much a regime is lauded, however much poets 
and sentimental dreamers proclaim its virtues, he will hate it 



THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE EMPIRE 295 

if it compels him to do what he dislikes, to work when he 
would rest, to stay when he would leave, or to leave when he 
would stay ; if it prevents him from shaping his own destiny, 
from making the best use of his ability, from bringing up his 
family as he likes, and from regulating his household accord- 
ing to his own notions. Anybody who has had an oppor- 
tunity of listening to the protests of the working-men 
Anarchists against the paternal tyranny advocated by the 
Socialists cannot fail to be convinced of the impossibility of 
reconciling the British race to the loss of individual liberty. 

This instinctive love of individual freedom which charac- 
terises the British race all the world over has remained 
unabated, despite the universal propaganda in favour of 
State Socialism. It has been proof against the allurements 
of the most seductive Socialistic Utopias ; and the promises 
of a luxurious life, short hours, and absolute freedom from 
care have failed to conquer it. 

How much more value will not the British race attach 
to individual liberty when it is convinced that, far from 
furthering poverty or oppression of any kind, it constitutes 
in its extended and complete form, as defined in this work, 
the shortest and surest road to individual prosperity ! 

If the British Parliament, therefore, decreed that no inter- 
ference with personal liberty will be permitted within the 
British dominions, and if the British government could be 
depended upon to carry out the decree, all the masses in our 
colonies and dependencies would have supplied to them the 
stongest possible motive for clinging to the Empire. 

To appreciate this fact it is necessary to have a clear con- 
ception of what individual liberty is. Our sentimental Col- 
lectivists obtain all the success of their propaganda against 
liberty by confusing and distorting that highest of all bless- 
ings. They are in the habit of crying out that complete 



296 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

liberty means licence, that licence means disorder, and that 
only through restrictions and authoritative supervision can 
human beings be prevented from harming each other. It 
suits their purpose to consider liberty not as the general 
right of all citizens, but as the privilege of one individual 
alone, and by such reasoning it is not difficult to prove that 
unlimited liberty to one is destructive to the liberty of all 
others. The silliest illustrations are frequently given. We 
are, for example, told that if we had complete liberty, any 
one could walk into another man's house and carry away 
what he desired. Those who never sowed would be able to 
reap. The possession of land and other property would be 
fought for. Debts would never be paid. Any person could 
help himself to the ready money in the banks, and so on. 

All these illustrations even a child would recognise as 
infractions of liberty. To avoid all such confusion, it suffices 
to bear in mind that in a model State each individual's 
liberty is determined by the liberties of all the others. 

Socialists and other opponents of individual liberty are 
not the only people who overlook this simple truth. The 
Anarchists have not grasped it, and disgusted with all 
governments because they have ruthlessly infringed the most 
sacred liberties, they are willing to run the risk of a total 
abolition of all authority in order to secure individual 
freedom. Their aim is a good one like that of the Socialists, 
but the extreme measures by which they also, like the 
Socialists, desire to attain to it would utterly defeat their 
object. 

The simple truth is that individual liberty, like all other 
advantages, can only be obtained by co-operation ; and just 
as individuals might co-operate with great advantage to 
themselves in the construction of a road, in the sinking of a 
mine, or in the defence of their country, so they might 



THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE EMPIRE 297 

co-operate in securing individual liberty. The people speci- 
ally appointed to watch over the maintenance of individual 
freedom might as well be called government as anything 
else, though of course it is a well-known fact that a term 
which for a long time has been applied to a bad thing 
might, when applied to a good one, cause confusion in super- 
ficial minds. But even Anarchists would probably reconcile 
themselves to a government, if it were perfectly understood 
and guaranteed that the foremost duty of government should 
be to protect individual liberty. 

Collectivists would, however, demur to individual liberty 
even in the form as described above, and would point to the 
necessity of minorities to subject themselves to the wish of 
the majority. Without absolute power in the majority, 
they would say, the leading feature of modern society would 
be impossible. The army and navy could not be kept up. 
Such useful institutions as the Post Office would be out of 
the question. The currency would deteriorate through 
private coinage. State and municipal loans, and all the 
great improvements to which they are applied, would have 
to be abandoned, and so on. 

It is certainly true that, with a government making the 
maintenance of individual liberty its first duty, many lead- 
ing features of our modern society would disappear, but 
these would be the bad features now so predominant. There 
would be no monopolies, no official tyranny, no favouritism, 
far fewer party intrigues, no tendency to indebtedness, no 
scarcity of money, no usury, no sweating, and no artificial 
production of misery, vice, and degradation. 

Great and beneficial reforms have been seldom accom- 
plished all at once. It is rarely possible to do so, and 
generally foolish to attempt it, but this does not preclude 
the fact that the direction, in which sound reforms should 



298 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

move, should be a desirable one, and that the aim striven for 
should be, even if never attained, a perfect ideal. We are, 
therefore, far from counselling any abrupt abandonment of 
the Collectivist or Socialist features of our present system. 
But every patriotic Briton should vote for a gradual pro- 
gress towards liberty by the abolition, one by one, of harmful 
Socialistic features, beginning with the most pernicious. By 
following such a system, we shall not only surely and steadily 
improve the condition of our people, but we shall by each 
reform we pass prepare the way for others, by increasing the 
prosperity, the patriotism, and the self-respect of every 
citizen, and by banishing the black care for daily bread and 
the horror of destitute old age, which now tend to obliterate 
the best instincts in our struggling millions. 

The circumstances which now prevail throughout our 
nation would not warrant any indiscriminate application of 
Individualistic principles, and if we contemplate the intro- 
duction now of one of these Individualistic reforms, which 
ought to be carried only when previous reforms have entirely 
changed the circumstances, we should find that we might 
do more harm than good. Trusting that the above remarks 
may have conveyed a somewhat exact idea of the meaning 
here attached to individual liberty and progress on Indi- 
vidualistic lines, we may not perhaps be counted fanatics 
if we venture to show that the tyranny of majorities is not 
indispensable to the maintenance of such institutions as are 
often quoted as impossible without it. 

Voluntary taxation is one of the reforms for which society 
will not be ripe for a long time to come, and one which is 
not of great importance in this stage of our development, 
and is therefore not included in the Individualistic pro- 
gramme which this work commends. Yet most Englishmen 
will probably admit that no compulsion would be necessary 



THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE EMPIRE 299 

to provide funds for the maintenance of the army and 
navy. 

In continental countries, where the voluntary principle is 
not so popular, and where it has never been subjected to 
such severe tests as in England, it is considered impossible 
to dispense with compulsory service in the army. In the 
United Kingdom, on the other hand, we have an army which, 
though small, surpasses any other army in effectiveness, and 
this — according to experts — despite a defective administra- 
tion, absence of system and inefficient control. Besides the 
army, we have our large Volunteer Force, to join which 
men make sacrifices of time and money without any hope of 
compensation from the government, and generally without 
any aspiration to promotion. 

In face of such splendid results of the voluntary principle, 
is it possible to believe that Britishers would refuse to con- 
tribute to the maintenance of the army and navy, and thus 
jeopardise their national liberty, their commerce, their in- 
dustry, their political influence in the world, the existence of 
the Empire, the resources of their own wealth and that of their 
descendants ? When India was governed by a company of 
British merchants, did they hesitate to maintain the army 
which was indispensable to maintain their position ? Did the 
Chartered Company of South Africa hesitate to raise the army 
which had become necessary for the peaceful development of 
their possessions ? Our numerous and excellent hospitals are 
maintained by voluntary contributions, and this despite the 
prevailing Socialistic ideas that strongly run counter to 
voluntary institutions. When the sentiment of charity 
alone can produce such results in the way of voluntary 
sacrifice, what may not be expected from such strong incen- 
tives as love of country, ambition, and self-interest ? 

As to the Post Office and similar institutions, compulsion 



300 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

is certainly not indispensable. The whole nation, if it so 
chooses, could co-operate in such institutions, and leave to 
government the management of them, without inflicting 
compulsion on any man. The difference would only be 
that the Post Office would have no monopolies, would not 
have the power to interfere with useful private undertakings, 
and might have to sustain the competition of other Post 
Offices. Such competition would however not be likely to 
arise, as the very possibility of it would exercise a most 
healthy influence on the national Post Office. 

For the maintenance of the currency no compulsion what- 
soever is necessary. Our pound sterling is not an arbitrary 
creation of the government, but the outcome of a series of 
evolutions and a result of the law of the survival of the fittest. 
Whatever the government does with the coinage, the commer- 
cial men of the kingdom would quietly adhere to that value- 
measure which is the most convenient. In another chapter 
we have already pointed out how in olden times the Ham- 
burg merchants, harrassed by the base coinage of the neigh- 
bouring princes, created a new value-measurer of their own 
— the Mark Banco — which became the standard of value 
throughout the whole of Northern Europe, simply on the 
strength of its usefulness, and without any compulsion what- 
ever. If therefore our Bimetallists succeed in imposing their 
views on Parliament, if Currency Theorists, a little more 
rational, are allowed to do their best to introduce Tri- 
metallism or Multimetallism, if our friends of the Free 
Money League are permitted to adopt a currency based on 
goods in general, or even a day^ work, if in fact every man 
in the country were free to create his own value-measurer 
and to coin his own coin, as he is free to strike medals and 
card -counters, all this apparently Babylonian confusion would 
not affect in the slightest the value-measurer adopted in 



THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE EMPIRE 301 

virtue of its convenience. As neither seller nor buyer, land- 
lord or tenant, lender or borrower, would have any advantage 
in using inferior value-measurers, they would not come into 
use at all. Though we have a government-regulated coin- 
age, or rather a coinage sanctioned by government, every 
Englishman is free to make sales, purchases and contracts, 
without any reference to the coin of the realm, stipulating 
payments and valuations to be made in any kind of goods 
he chooses, and yet this liberty is hardly ever taken advan- 
tage of. On the contrary, transactions which in olden times 
used to be by direct barter have, as people have become more 
alive to their own interest and convenience, developed into 
contracts defined in coin. No agitation, no government 
compulsion, could force humanity back in this respect. 

State Loans would not be so recklessly resorted to in any 
State where the tyranny of the majority over the minoritv 
does not exist as they have been in foreign countries and 
colonies. As we have seen, the bulk of such loans have been 
taken under a complete misconception of the economic re- 
quirements of the borrowing country, and have exercised a 
ruinous influence on the borrowing country when drawn in, and 
have resulted in excessive taxation when repaid. But the 
State itself would not be absolutely deprived of its borrow- 
ing power, because, even without the tyranny of the majority 
over minorities, a well-governed country would present good 
securities for a considerable credit. But State Loans would 
be of rare occurrence in countries governed on Individualistic 
principles. England is far from being an ideal in this 
respect, and yet few loans have been resorted to since the 
Congress of Vienna ; and those which have been taken up 
have been occasioned by useless wars or preparations for 
war. Besides, if the country were in danger and its national 
existence threatened, one of those abnormal situations would 



302 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

have been reached in which any principle may be sacrificed 
to expediency. 

But Municipal Loans could not be raised by the present 
methods if municipal governments had not the power to tax 
the individuals with interest and capital. This means that 
County Councillors, District Councillors, and Parish Coun- 
cillors would not have the right to run people into debt and 
to raise loans on other people's property without the owner's 
consent. The deprivation of such power would compel the 
communities each year to regulate the expenses for local 
improvement on the amount of taxes they are willing to 
pay. This could not be considered an evil when it is borne 
in mind that the system of borrowing for local improvements 
tends to ruin the communities indulging in it in two ways. 
In the first place, the increased taxation which the system 
involves drives capital and productive business out of the 
district; and, in the second place, the spending of money 
subjects all the productive traders that sell their products 
outside the district to similar difficulties to those described 
in another chapter a propos of the borrowing mania of our 
Colonies : that is to say, the productive industries in the 
borrowing districts meet with the same difficulties as they 
would encounter in a gold-producing country. Municipal 
Loans would, however, not be impossible, but only those 
individuals who would have given their consent would be 
responsible for the capital and the interest. Now would 
large undertakings for the benefit of the community be pre- 
vented. If extensive water- works were desirable, it must 
follow that the majority of householders would be willing 
to pay for the water, and if these bind themselves to pay a 
yearly water-rate, a financial basis for raising capital is 
attained to. In a prosperous community, there would be 
hardly any householder who would not have water in his 



^- 



THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE EMPIRE 303 

house, and the absence of compulsion would have made no 
perceptible difference. 

It is not necessary to continue these illustrations of Indi- 
vidualism carried to a point which will not be reached here, 
or in the Colonies, for some time to come. If, in our time, 
we can convince thinking Englishmen that the goal of pro- 
gress must be liberty and not slavery under the State, the 
continuance of that progress towards individual freedom and 
dignity, for which humanity has striven for thousands of 
years, will be assured. While, therefore, it is out of the 
question to frame an Imperial Constitution involving an 
ideal Individualism, the enormous advantages which a de- 
velopment in an individualistic direction presents would, no 
doubt, be sufficient to cause all our Colonies cheerfully to 
adhere to the Constitution with genuine liberty for its ulti- 
mate goal. Of the special liberties recommended in this 
work, the two first ones, complete Free Trade, and Free 
Competition in the supply of Capital to Labour, might 
suffice as the leading principles in all States and all Colonies 
in the British Empire. As we have endeavoured to show, 
these two liberties would be conducive to a greater prosperity, 
than hitherto any nation has experienced, and would, there- 
fore, naturally fulfil one of the most important demands on 
a good Constitution, namely, individual prosperity. 

The enforcement of these two liberties in our dependencies 
would meet with hardly any opposition once the United 
Kingdom had set the example. It would infringe no 
principle and involve no humiliation. To compel people 
to be free cannot be to interfere with their liberty, and 
to compel people to be prosperous cannot be called 
oppression. 

Once such advantages, from a connection with the Empire, 
are recognised, severance from it on the part of any of our 



304 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

Possessions would be extremely difficult. None of the great 
Powers, with their Collectivist systems, could possibly offer 
any advantages approaching to those enjoyed in the British 
Empire. Agitators for complete political secession would 
be at an utter loss for arguments : for, the highest degree of 
liberty having been attained, essential change would have to 
be in the direction of less liberty. Even if Secessionist 
parties promised to respect the fundamental liberties, it is 
not likely that prudent colonists would easily forgo that 
splendid guarantee for their freedom which their connec- 
tion with the United Kingdom would afford. 

The immense trade that would spring up between the 
component parts of the Empire, as well as with the United 
Kingdom, would soon prove too invaluable an advantage to 
be risked by secession. 

A closer connection, based on mutual interest, between so 
many different countries, involving the creation of immense 
resources, would render the British Empire a State of such 
might as to give it an unquestioned superiority over any 
coalition of States likely to occur. The citizens of so power- 
ful a Fatherland would enjoy protection in every country 
they visited, a valuable privilege which would be lost to 
seceded Colonies. 

When such strong ties of union as guarantees for liberty 
and prosperity have been called into existence, further pro- 
gress in an Individualistic direction would, no doubt, be 
congenial to all the citizens of the Empire. The oneness of 
aim, the unanimity with regard to methods, and the solidarity 
in results would naturally lead to uniformity in laws and 
institutions, which again would powerfully contribute to the 
consolidation of the whole Empire. 

When, thus, the peoples of the Empire are convinced that 
a close union of all British possessions is capable of realising 



THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE EMPIRE 305 

the brightest hope and of gratifying the proudest feeling of 
each individual, when the fundamental principle on which 
such a close union is to rest has been justified by results of 
palpable prosperity, then it will be easy to frame an Imperial 
Constitution of a nature that will make every man in British 
domains feel that he is part-owner of the wealthiest and 
most powerful Empire in the world — a Constitution that 
will render the greatest rewards and the highest honours 
accessible to every able and worthy citizen, be he born in a 
palace in London or in a log-hut of Tasmania. 



?<< 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 



BY 



FRANCIS FLETCHER-VANE 

FELLOW OP THE ROYAL GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY 
AND COMMANDER OF THE MILITARY ORDER OP CHRIST 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 

' Though the reign of saints was now no doubt begun, I am willing to 
defer my share in it till I shall go to heaven.' — Letter from Sir Harry 
Vane to the Lord Protector Cromwell. 

It is fortunate for a writer on this subject at the present 
time, that his way is made easy by the mistakes of the 
enemies of social order and of good government. It is easy 
to steer where the rocks are well above the level of the 
water. However, it is not a matter for popular congratula- 
tion that party politicians have been empowered to serve 
their own ends by bringing municipal affairs to such a pass 
that they can chiefly be utilised as ' awful examples ' of bad 
government to be flaunted before the eyes of the rising 
generation. But it is not alone by bringing to the notice 
of the readers of this work the banal examples of bad policy 
that I propose to deal with this subject. Just as in the 
sphere of imaginative literature the more enduring writer 
it is who typifies noble conduct, so in the political, he who 
shows not what is to be avoided, but what is to be done, is 
he who commands the greatest attention. It is on this 
account, therefore, that I, in a humble way, have tried in 
this chapter to be rather a directing post than a 'no 
thoroughfare ' barrier. 

It is of first importance to at once clear the ground by 
asserting the necessity in all boroughs or counties of possess- 
ing a strong centralised government. This, it will be seen, is 
due from the fact that modern life is so infinitely varied in 



310 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

interest and so complex in form, that a heterogeneous system 
of government is not only opposed to the general trend of 
thought, but is in itself too likely to lower the standard 
of excellence rather than to elevate it. This is, fortunately, 
a case in which science and expediency join. The former 
teaches that alone through discipline and order can the 
divergent interests in a modern State be harmonised, and 
the latter shows that both in Imperial and in Municipal 
matters the tendency is towards unity, and consequently 
it is not wise to put ourselves into opposition to this 
reasonable development. In fact, just in proportion as we 
feel the necessity of allowing free play to the individual 
initiative of the citizen, so are we bound to see that there 
is one strong, and not many weak, corporate authorities, 
who will preserve to the citizen his freedom. ' Liberty, 1 as 
Burke says truly, 4 must be limited in order to be possessed."* 
But before going into the question of the varied relations 
which the municipal State has to enter into, both with the 
higher power above it and with the smaller and less import- 
ant bodies below, I am constrained to speak of the men who 
should be chosen by a wise city or county to represent it at 
the Council Chamber. In the first place, it is above all 
things necessary to get men whose views are wide, who 
possess that amount of scientific knowledge which will 
enable them to see the whole of any question, and there- 
fore the relative proportion of each detail. We are told 
very often thatjwe are a practical people. Indeed, it seems 
that not infrequently we are so practical that we miss good 
opportunities. Too many times do we hear that So-and-So 
is a good member because he is a good local man. The 
good .local man is not under present conditions the best 
representative, because he is not returned to advocate purely 
local interests. He is returned to advance the interests of 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 311 

the whole city, and not of that particular part of it which 
may happen to elect him. The phase of mind which 
recognises the best representative in the local politician 
points to the fact that the system of modern representative 
government has not yet been fully appreciated. When 
purely local matters were paramount this point of view 
might have been justified. At present the representative 
has to decide far more difficult and complex questions than 
those pertaining to his district, and the local man is there- 
fore out of place in an assembly in which general subjects 
are chiefly considered. It is necessary to get representatives 
who are in no wise faddists, local or otherwise, and who are 
strongly opposed to every kind of class legislation. These 
men must understand that they are to be merely the financial 
and moral trustees of the ratepayers, expending the latter's 
money and directing the latter^ energies entirely for the 
benefit of the people as a whole. The fact is, that for 6 a 
practical people ' we are lamentably wanting in practicality 
in our choice of representatives. The most hap-hazard 
system prevails, and too often the man is chosen for a seat 
at the councils of the city, who would be chosen for no other 
public capacity however humble. The result has been that 
instead of generally obtaining men who can judge with well- 
balanced minds the widely divergent interests of modern 
life, we too often give the preference to those of whom it 
may be said that their only claim to public station lies in 
the fact that their energies are concentrated on matters of 
the smallest interest, whose position, in fact, has been made 
by their own narrow-mindedness. The universal panacea- 
monger is preferred before the man who knows that no 
single cure can be named * for all the ills the flesh is heir 
to,'' because the former, through his misplaced enthusiasm, 
has collected round him a following of equally thin-brained 



312 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

fanatics who will vote for him right or wrong so long as he 
supports the c cause.' 

Having, I am afraid, digressed somewhat unwarrantably 
with the object of explaining one evil arising out of the 
present system, I must now survey the duties of a munici- 
pality as a whole, firstly, in its relations to the individual 
citizen, and secondly, in its relation to corporate bodies. 

It is of first importance for public reasons that each 
citizen should have the fullest liberty in working out his 
own material salvation. The minor State or municipality 
has to see that he has it, and to prevent by force, if neces- 
sary, other citizens from unwarrantably crossing his path, 
and thereby curtailing his freedom. Moreover, the State 
may direct his mind through education, including as it does 
instruction in general knowledge, in sanitation, in discipline, 
even in religion, but it may not, so long as he does not 
interfere with his neighbours'' welfare, compel his body. To 
ensure this liberty the citizen cheerfully pays his taxes, and 
so long as he finds that he is adequately protected, is 
sufficiently preserved from disease through sanitation, and 
has opportunities of reasonable and healthy recreation, he 
is content to pay. But directly he finds that the local 
authority is wasting his money, either by enriching itself 
or by devoting it to the benefit of one special class, he 
becomes restless, and if he has the power he upsets a govern- 
ment, and if he has not the power he upsets himself, and 
through him his trade. He refuses under these conditions 
to save, knowing that thrift is useless, and consequently he 
becomes a danger-point in the State. Every man who lives 
in such a way as, should things go wrong for a short time, 
he inevitably must become bankrupt, is a source of danger 
to the State, the greater danger in exact proportion to the 
citizen's reputed wealth. 



J 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 313 

Therefore Charity, as we understand the term, does not 
and never can belong to the duties of the State. What is 
Charity in an individual is class-legislation and crime in a 
State. The individual gives of his own out of accumulated 
capital, the result of individual thrift ; the State gives, on 
the contrary, out of compulsorily accumulated funds, pledg- 
ing thereby the wealth not only of the citizens, but that of 
their children and of their children's children. It is, in fact, 
giving away with a light heart for sentimental reasons the 
energy of the people for two and even three generations. 
What would be said of a trustee who, becoming' deeply im- 
pressed by the poverty of one class, gave out of the estate 
of which he was trustee a sum of money for the benefit of 
that class ? He would place himself most certainly within 
the clutches of the law. It might be urged, however : sup- 
pose the beneficiaries of the estate agreed to the spending 
of their money in this way. If they all did, the action 
would, perhaps, be justified, but if one objected, though a 
majority were in favour of the action of the trustee, he 
would without doubt incriminate himself. 

It will from the above be easily seen what measures are 
not justified by justice and sound economy. Many of the 
local authorities have, during periods of trade depression, 
provided for unemployed citizens work of certain kinds. 
Now either the work executed was required or it was not. 
If the first proposition is true, then the local authority was 
to blame for not having performed its duty at an earlier 
period. If the latter, the public should not have been 
called upon by their trustees to pay an unnecessary sum to 
provide for the support of the sufferers. This is surely 
the work for the charitably disposed ; it is certainly not 
part of the duty of the municipal authority ; nay, this 
expenditure is a distinct breach of faith on their part. The 



314 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

evil arising is twofold. First, it pauperises the citizens just as 
much to set them to do unnecessary labour as it does to give 
the beggar a careless sixpence in the street, for it makes the 
former less attentive in his work, and the latter it makes less 
anxious to obtain work. This former kind of pauperisation 
is very prevalent to-day, and*our good grandmother the State 
is to see us through every misfortune. The effects of this 
policy are bad enough as applied to the men, encouraging as 
it does the fallacy that the riches of the world are infinite in 
quantity and to be extracted without much thought ; it is, 
however, even greater when looked at from the State's point 
of view. It is not too much to say that every modern State 
which has accepted this method of providing for the unem- 
ployed has either been completely ruined or partially so, 
just in proportion to the extent in which it has adopted this 
principle. To illustrate this let us glance at the striking 
example of the evil effects of this legislation in Australia. 
This country possesses proportionately a very large unem- 
ployed population, and these have the voting power con- 
ferred by manhood suffrage. The result has been that 
ignorant and time-serving politicians have found it con- 
venient to forward their own ends by obtaining work for 
these unfortunates. They have promoted, to achieve this 
end, the erection of unnecessary Government buildings and 
workshops, and, more detrimental than these, they have 
created with Government funds a vast number of quite 
superfluous railways. All of these things, be it remembered, 
are quite unremunerative. The result of this extravagance 
is that the several States in Australia either are bankrupt, or 
would be so, but for the confiding disposition of English 
investors. Were the Australian governments not under the 
protection of the Imperial Crown, every one of them would 
have been in an insolvent condition for these many years past. 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 315 

It will be seen, therefore, that municipal ruin is, and must 
always be, the result of State pseudo-philanthropy, and that 
what does a little harm, when performed by the individual of 
his own will, does infinite and widespread injury, when per- 
formed out of the compulsory levies of the State. One 
other thing must be enforced in this connection. The un- 
employed problem is one requiring for its solution the most 
devoted and the highest intelligence of the race. All tenta- 
tive measures are simply putting back its final solution, and 
they are nothing more than a sentimentally approved method 
of shutting the eyes of the people to well-known and ever- 
recurring facts. This problem will, no doubt, be dealt with 
radically and with the help of science, and it is, therefore, 
the more to be deplored that amateurish persons should 
have the means of deferring its solution. 

Under the system now in vogue the local authority under- 
takes to perform its own work. This, on the face of it, 
seems but reasonable if the work can be performed at a less 
cost than it could through the medium of the ordinary 
contractor. In a non-elected corporation this possibly may 
be achieved, but in a corporation returned by a wide franchise, 
I submit, it is not possible to economise by so doing, and for 
the following reason. The bulk of the electorate is com- 
posed of labourers, and they are consequently potential 
government employees. As the council is returned by them 
so they can dictate to the authority the wages to be paid by 
it to its employees. Consequently the employer is not in a 
free position to make a bargain with his servants in respect 
to the wage to be paid, because he is in turn the servant 
of his servants. The municipal authority is therefore bound 
hand and foot, and the result is that to excuse the exorbitant 
wage which is commonly extracted from him he has to fall 
back on such ridiculously unscientific excuses for his extrava- 



316 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

gance as are such phrases : ' The living wage, 1 ' The minimum 
wage,"* and ' The trade union wage." 1 It cannot be too clearly 
pointed out that such a thing as a fixed ' minimum wage ' 
does not exist. The lowest sum paid to the lowest labour 
is regulated alone by the productivity of Nature and the 
energies of man. The Laws of Nature, unlike those of man, 
cannot be repealed. Man can only eat and enjoy what 
Nature provides for him, so if you put one hundred men 
where fifty only can thrive, then either half will starve or 
the whole must reduce their standard of comfort or their 
minimum wage. This ' trade union wage ' is a very old cry 
indeed, as old as the Roman Empire. ' Bread and games for 
the people ' is now what it was under the later emperors, and 
so long as the productivity of Nature and the race is propor- 
tionate to this demand, it is not harmful. Unfortunately, as 
in Rome so in England, the demand for ' games ' is generally 
louder after a bad spell of trade, because the people, relatively 
ignorant as they must be, resent the change in their circum- 
stances caused by this lowering in the productivity of the 
race, and they become more and more discontented. If at 
this crisis are to be found, in the service of the State, poli- 
ticians either without science or without principle, it is 
inevitable that these men will promise, to that section of the 
people who hold the balance of power, that which at the 
moment is unwise and unattainable, to serve their own 
ambitions. 

I give below a few measures of the County Council of 
London which may justly be put on the black list : — 

1. Fair wages established in all cases. 

2. A maximum week of fifty-four hours established. 

3. No man to work more than six days a week. 

4. Overtime abolished. 

5. Establishment of municipal lodging-houses. 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 317 

The above list has been taken from a recently published 
book by Mr. W. T. Stead, who, while being a Socialist, 
happens curiously enough to be an honest striver after real 
progress. That he does not see the harm of these measures, 
nay, that he glories in this form of class legislation, has 
nothing to do with our survey of them. But it is necessary 
to say that all the measures which have been borrowed from 
his list are pregnant with the gravest of mischief. His work 
is addressed to Americans, and his boast to them is 'see 
what we have in England done for labour,' meaning, of 
course, the lowest form of it, and that what has been 
done for labour is the misapplication of public funds in 
its behalf. It would be as reasonable for him to boasts 
were such a Bill passed, of the beneficent energies of the 
people of England in providing State support for all the 
members of noble English families. The one and the other 
are equally class legislation, and equally detrimental to the 
interest of the State; nay, it is worse in the case of the 
labourers, for whereas in the case I have supposed, namely, 
that Parliament should take it into its head to support 
the members of historical houses, it would have at least a 
limited number of pensioners, in the case referred to by 
Mr. Stead it has an unlimited number. Because when you 
pamper a trade, it naturally has always a tendency to attract 
to itself more and more persons from other classes and 
trades. 

The first on the list of London County Council measures 
bears a specious appearance of justice — Fair Wages. But 
be it remembered that what is called here a fair wage is 
decided, not by the joint concurrence of the employer and 
employed, but by a trade union composed solely of the latter. 
It is the same as if I should say to my landlord in London 
that I had decided to pay him a fair rent for my house, the 



318 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

fairness of it having been decided by a trade union of tenants, 
and that ^50 a year should in the future be my rent, 
though its market value is estimated at three times that 
amount. All the other items in this list will be dealt with 
elsewhere. 

I have before said that the demand for more pleasure and 
food for the people is good when such demand is progres- 
sively made in a ratio to the financial progress of the country, 
and it is bad when made out of such proportion. The effects 
of this latter policy may be seen in the history of Rome. 
It will be remembered that after the death of Alexander 
Severus Rome was in a condition of great financial weakness. 
There were many causes for this ; the more pregnant ones 
being the loss of municipal spirit through the inclusion of 
provincials to the freedom of the city, and the weakness of 
the emperors who had become the mere puppets of the 
Praetorian Guard. The effect of this latter impotency was 
displayed by the anxiety which these degenerate successors 
of Caesar evinced to amuse, rather than to instruct, their 
people. The people themselves were rapidly losing that 
municipal courage and independence which had marked 
them out as a great people under the republic of the early 
Caesars. The citizens were beginning to look to the govern- 
ment for help in those cases where in the past they had 
trusted alone to the strength of their individual energy. 
They were, in fact, become the slaves of a bureaucratic 
system. The government, because it was weak, neglected 
the interest of the whole people to enable it to pamper a 
section of it which temporarily held the reins of power. 
They provided, in fact, at immense expense, games 1 and 
offices for the Praetorian Guard and their dissolute relations 

1 In the fourth century the annual games in Rome and Constantinople have 
been estimated to have cost £160,000 sterling. 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 319 

and friends; the result of this policy was the phenomenal 
decline of the Empire, and the putting back of the progress 
of the world's civilisation by at least a thousand years. 

Again, let us look at the same causes at work in France 
under the second Empire. Napoleon acquired power through 
fraud ; he had to keep it through corruption. In France, as 
nowhere else, the metropolis holds the balance of power. 
Napoleon and his advisers saw this very clearly, and, with 
the wisdom of the serpent, he laid himself out to corrupt 
Paris with the money provided by the whole people. Con- 
sequently an extravagant Court was kept up ; a showy but 
useless army ; reviews, balls, public and private ; the widest 
and least exclusive hospitality at the Tuileries; almost 
Oriental fetes, — these were some of the means employed to 
bribe the traders of Paris, and he accomplished for the time 
his object. To this day the shop-keeper of the Boulevard 
will lament to a customer the departed glory — which for him 
means the vanished trade in luxury — of the Empire, forget- 
ting that now the whole of France is infinitely wealthier 
than it ever was in those sumptuous days. We know what 
befell France in 1870. A crippled and unshod army, a 
bankrupt treasury, peculation everywhere, and the final and 
not undeserved collapse. 

Let us glance now across the Atlantic. Since the Great 
Civil War the United States have enjoyed financial advan- 
tages of exceptional character. A rich and almost limitless 
territory, a relatively small but energetic people, freedom from 
all external complications, climatic conditions varying in the 
several parts of the country so widely that almost every con- 
ceivable raw material can be raised within the bounds of the 
Republic. It must be admitted that the Americans have in 
some respects made good use of these exceptional advantages. 
Their producing power has more than doubled in the last 



320 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

twenty-five years, placing them among the wealthiest of the 
nations of the earth. No less than 2000 millions sterling 
have been expended on their railway system, which expendi- 
ture should be a fairly good index to the general productive- 
ness of the country. Up to two years ago he would have 
been a bold man who asserted before Americans that this 
progress would not continue in the same proportion inde- 
finitely. Since then, however, the greatest change has come 
over the scene, success has turned to disaster, commodities 
have tumbled down in value to an almost unprecedented 
degree. The output of all industries is seriously, and pro- 
bably permanently, curtailed. Mercantile houses of all kinds 
have fallen, credit is to a great extent impaired, the market 
value of railways has diminished by two-thirds, and the con- 
sequence of all these calamities is that in America to-day 
there is a greater unemployed population proportionately 
than in some of the oldest and most overpopulated countries 
of Europe. 

What has been the chief cause of this terrific change? 
I think it will be seen that 'bread and games for the 
people , has played no little part; the people being, be 
it well understood, as everywhere to a weak government, 
that section of them which holds the government in fee. 
Let us see who these are in the United States. Owing to 
the wide political corruption, the section of the people who 
hold the balance of power are the millionaires and the manu- 
facturers. Grant a people given over to the worship of 
Mammon, and grant a want of electoral integrity, the 
wealthy men under these conditions must hold the ultimate 
power. The government of the United States, whether 
democrat or republican, has devoted its best energies to 
the promotion of those measures which make for the pros- 
perity of this class without respect to and without considera- 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 321 

tion of the other sections of the community, because these 
people possess the power through their caucuses of retaining 
or ejecting them. The true inner of the history of the 
Protectionist policy in the United States has yet to be 
written, but when it is written it will be found that the 
causes I have enumerated have had more to do with its 
adoption than anything else. It is so obvious that this 
policy could in no wise benefit the whole country, because 
its wealth lies not in the exploitation of manufactures, but 
in its productivity in respect to raw material. Protection, 
therefore, was paid for out of the pockets of agriculturists, 
miners, and a host of others depending on these industries. 
This was indeed the bribe offered to the class who held the 
power. The government said in effect — I will take the wealth 
of the country, and to you manufacturers I will hand over 
the largest share if you will keep me in power to do it. 
6 Bread and games to the people, 1 champagne and Parisian 
dishes to those I call the people — namely, those who keep 
me in power. The result, failure of credit and loss of 
wealth, employers of labour ruined, workmen thrown out 
of employment, discontent, strikes, labour wars, and the 
rest. 

In the few examples I have taken, the ground has pretty 
well been covered in respect to the favouritism by govern- 
ment of special classes. Amusement and those necessities 
which the people demand, given by a weak and power-loving 
government to a section of the inhabitants from out of the 
accumulated stock of the whole community, ends always in 
the same manner — namely, in corporate indebtedness, fol- 
lowed by corporate failure. It is no matter whether the 
class to be benefited be the Praetorian Guard, the Pari- 
sian tradesmen, the eastern manufacturers of the United 
States, or the unemployed in London. This childish 



322 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

attempt to benefit a class by means of the accumulated stock 
of the whole people ends always in disaster to the whole 
community. It is the same cause at work which erects 
working-class buildings and lets them at lower than the 
market value, which starts municipal workshops to employ 
the unemployed, which expends the general fund in what- 
soever manner you care to imagine for the benefit of one 
class alone ; it is this method which in every case, when 
admitted into the policy of a State, leads directly to the 
same ruin. 

To raise funds for such expenditure heavy rates must be 
imposed. These mean loss of business, which eventually 
throws a proportion of the workers out of employment, and 
these again clamour for work at the doors of the council 
chamber, consequently there is simply a progressively expand- 
ing labour trouble. The only protection which the working 
men can hope for is brought about by a steady condition of 
trade. While trade remains stable, the labourer can command 
the full value for his work ; but a stable condition of trade 
can be only kept up by economic taxation and consequent 
security for capital. Directly the possessors of capital be- 
come frightened, the flow of it towards industrial enterprise 
is checked, which means failure or bad trade for the enter- 
prises concerned, and the throwing out of employment of 
the persons occupied in these enterprises. The cause of the 
acceptance of this false economy has been everywhere the 
same. Ignorant legislators weakly placed in power natur- 
ally play into the hands of that section of the people which 
promises for them continuance in office. 

While on this subject, it is worth while to give an opinion 
with regard to the vexed question of betterment. Better- 
ment without its correlative worsement is a direct interference 
with the liberty of the individual, and a totally unwise and 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 323 

unjust procedure. But when the two run together there is 
no more harm in this than in any other State-organised im- 
provement. In a recent attempt by the London County 
Council to insidiously introduce the one without the other, 
it has been fortunately stopped by the Committee of the 
Lords, and the discovery of this injustice is very much to 
the credit of that assembly. It is very clear that no local 
body must have the power of playing for its own benefit the 
ancient and much patronised game of ' Heads I win and tails 
you lose.' 

I have attempted to point out in this survey of the 
duties of the municipal authority in its relation to the 
individual some of the pitfalls which have not generally 
been seen, and by which local administrations have been 
prostrated. Now let me point out some of the more 
healthy forms in which municipal energy may be exercised. 
There is every reason for a rich city to expend a fair sum on 
beautifying itself. The effect of having handsome streets 
and numerous parks is the excellent one of bringing people 
to use them. Everything which pleases the eye and refreshes 
the mind has a civilising effect, and out-of-door life generally 
may be said to be a potent condition in reducing the sum of 
human misery and sin. So open spaces should to a reason- 
able extent be provided for the people's amusement. Sani- 
tation should be carefully and with the aid of science 
attended to, and it should be one of the first duties of the 
municipal authority to see that no individual lives within 
the bounds of their power in such a condition of squalor and 
poverty as may lead to the endangerment of the community. 
Moreover, the children of vicious parents may be rightly 
considered the wards of the State ; there can be no right of 
the individual which can interpose between the State and 
this duty. The citizen should have perfect freedom of 



324 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

action, as has been said before, within the limits of his own 
personal interest ; he no more, however, has a right to inter- 
fere with his child's welfare by giving it a bad education than 
he has to upset his neighbour's business through unnecessary 
interference. Though the child may become under these cir- 
cumstances the ward of the municipality, there is no reason 
that in so doing the parent should be relieved of his natural 
responsibilities ; the child withdrawn by the State from 
surroundings admittedly unhealthy should be educated by it 
at the parent's charge. To do otherwise is simply rewarding 
the bad parent while allowing the virtuous one to retain his 
burdens. 

Now let us finally look at the question of municipal 
loans, because this subject is of extreme importance to the 
individual citizens. It may very reasonably be doubted, 
unless the municipality is possessed of considerable convert- 
ible property, whether it ought to contract loans secured to 
the lender by assigning future rates to him. This method, 
so commonly adopted, is doing two very hurtful things. In 
the first place, it is forcing many individuals against their 
express wish into indebtedness. Moreover, by assigning a 
claim over future rates to the lender it is charging unborn 
generations of citizens for the purpose of doing something of 
purely ephemeral interest. In the first instance municipal 
borrowing is directly opposed to that principle of freedom 
which states in the most authoritative manner that no man 
shall become a party to a contract against his will ; and in the 
second, the unfortunate parties yet to be born when they 
enter this world of trouble will do so with a balance on the 
wrong side at their bankers. It would be much better to 
encourage for all not strictly necessary expenditure the charit- 
able energies of the rich. Such a source of income would 
not be likely to fail, because there are too many incentives 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 325 

to such bounty. Philanthropy and the desire for civic 
distinction together, it may be believed, would enable all 
real improvements to be made without recourse to the rais- 
ing of money through pledging the future energies of the 
race. It might not be unwise to adopt the plan found to 
be very efficient at the time of the highest prosperity of the 
Republic of Genoa. In an old palace there, down by the 
sea, are shown to the inquiring tourist the statues, busts and 
medallions of ancient public-spirited citizens. Each class of 
these, whether statue, bust or medallion, I believe, had its 
price. Twenty thousand pounds expended by the benevolent 
citizen for the benefit of the community gave a right to a 
complete statue to commemorate his beneficence, and so on 
in degree for the lesser honours. Moreover, it will be 
remembered that in that architecturally beautiful city the 
streets were decorated by private enterprise, and those 
palaces which especially excelled in magnificence were singled 
out and the owners were sometimes honoured by nobility, 
and at other times relieved from the burdens of future taxa- 
tion on account of their public action in building fine 
houses, and also it may be believed on account of the good 
taste with which they had expended their money. Another 
instance of civic philanthropy stimulated by the hope of 
civic distinction is within my own memory. Some years 
ago in Florence it was necessary to construct a good carriage 
road up the steep hill of Fiesole. The citizens were asked 
to do this of their generosity ; those who would consent to 
give above a certain and considerable sum for this object 
being promised, whatever their rank might be, that their 
names should be inscribed in the Libro d'Oro of that city, 
in which have been kept the names of the ancient Florentine 
families from time immemorial. I need not say that the 
money for this road was very quickly collected. I have 



THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

referred to these few instances to point out that in expending 
money for the public good a city is not necessarily obliged 
to go to the ratepayers for every improvement suggested. 
There are many other and wiser methods of raising money than 
that one which forces indebtedness upon unwilling citizens. 

The important subject of licensing I place in the category 
of duties in respect to the individual, because I hold that 
the wisdom of conferring licences on certain forms of public 
entertainment is especially a part of the State's duty to the 
individual. It is possible that this is a wrong classification, 
but if I may be allowed the original principle on which 
much of this chapter is based, I think that the position 
allotted to this subject will be justified. It has been said 
that the duty of the municipal state is to direct the minds 
of the citizen in matters pertaining to general knowledge, 
etc., and it is therefore not easy to refuse to accept under 
general knowledge the information which the citizen may 
gain at places of public amusement. At the present moment 
we have to accept the facts as they are, and seeing that it 
has been decided that theatres should be rather under the 
control of the imperial authorities, and that music-halls and 
other inferior places of recreation are included under the 
municipal authority, therefore, so far as this chapter is con- 
cerned, we have but to deal with the inferior class. It is 
most difficult to draw such nice distinctions as are suggested 
by this classification, but it is possible that this division is 
not wholly illogical. It may be argued with some force that 
theatres perform an educational function of a more especially 
imperial nature, and that music-halls have more particularly 
a local character. It is not clear whether this distinction is 
justified, but under any circumstances it has been so ordained 
by Act of Parliament. 

Now, in the consideration of this subject, the first thing to 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 327 

be done is to rid ourselves of cant. From the municipal 
standpoint, what is it that a music-hall should do ? Obviously 
it should, in the first instance, amuse the citizens, and from 
this it may be argued that every facility it may require to 
achieve this object should be granted to it, because by so 
doing the music-hall performs a public function in helping to 
renovate the minds of the people through varied and interest- 
ing performances. This is its recreative object. The limita- 
tion of such powers is the same as it was in other matters. 
The entertainment must not go so far as to instruct people in 
the art of impairing the liberties of their neighbours. An 
entertainment which, to take an example, encouraged either 
collective or individual theft, would be by all reasonable men 
designated an undesirable form of recreation. The play 
which had for its hero a pickpocket or a murderer would 
undoubtedly be such an one as should properly be for- 
bidden public exhibition. All performances, however, which 
are neither good nor bad may very properly be considered 
to be of value if they amuse people, but no performance can 
be allowed which has either a degraded or a degenerating 
tendency. 

I have now surveyed the Individualistic policy in respect 
to the action of the municipal authority in more or less 
direct contact with the individual citizen. I have tried 
to insist that liberty is solely of value so long as it does 
not interfere with the freedom of other citizens ; and, on 
the other hand, interference in matters of trade by the 
local authority does an immensity of harm, not only to the 
individual, but even more strikingly to the municipality. 

Imperial Parliament. — Now we must pass on to the subject 
of the relations which should exist between the local authority 
and the powers above and below ; this branch of the subj ect 



328 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

naturally begins with its connection with the Imperial 
Parliament. The municipality possesses delegated powers 
of local government within its proper area, these powers 
being defined by the sovereign power, though, nominally at 
least, all the measures of the lower authority are subject to 
revision. The first aim which all reasonable men should 
direct their energies to is by some means or other to keep 
the municipal authority to its own proper work, and to 
discourage the too often displayed attempts to acquire new 
authority before they have made full use of that which 
exists. It should be definitely laid down that no approach 
can be made to the Imperial Parliament by inferior corpora- 
tions, except it be effected officially and in the corporate 
capacity of the latter. The existing arrangement in the 
House of Commons is fraught with the gravest inconvenience. 
Every member of a local parliament who happens also to have 
a seat in the Imperial one, looks upon himself, if we may 
judge from his actions, as the specially deputed represen- 
tative of that body in the councils of the nation. Moreover 
he is encouraged in this fallacious view of his position by the 
fact that Parliament, over-burdened as it is now with work, 
but too readily accepts a man's own claim to the repre- 
sentation of a particular subject. The consequence is that 
all kinds of County Council aggrandisement bills have been 
brought in by totally irresponsible members, none of which 
should have been allowed to occupy the time of the House 
at all. The tendency is therefore bad in being wasteful in 
the matter of time, and it is even more injurious on account 
of the fact that each of these pushing County Councillors is 
able to form a local group at his pleasure, and thereby 
to push the system of party government to the point of 
absurdity, thus helping to create more and yet more parties. 
When a group is formed principle too often is forgotten, 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 329 

and the small matter which concerns the group is elevated 
to the position which should properly be occupied by a 
great principle. The part is, I fear, very often in politics 
much greater than the whole. The only means of preventing 
this evil will be found in strictly adhering to the doctrines 
of discipline. Theoretically no member has a right to address 
Parliament on behalf of another local body, and this should 
be enforced with strictness by the officer responsible for the 
conduct of the affairs of the House. Moreover, it will be 
extremely useful if in the immediate future a permanent 
committee of both Houses be formed to revise the powers 
conferred on local authorities, and to form for them a 
court of appeal in lieu of the somewhat moribund Local 
Government Board. 

Minor Corporations. — The perfect administration of a 
given area depends not a little on the proper sub-division 
of powers. It has been admitted by both parties in the 
State, as well as by scientific opinion, that District and Parish 
Councils have become a necessity as the guardians of the 
rights of the district or the parish, to stand between them 
and unnecessary interference on behalf of the central body. 
A practical question, however, arises out of this : namely, 
How is this to be efficiently carried out ? It is obvious that 
an ill-digested scheme, entrusting to minor councils wide 
and co-ordinate powers, can only lead to friction and ultimate 
confusion. How can this best be avoided ? In constituting 
district authorities much more care should be applied to the 
definition of their powers than has been of late the custom 
in Parliament. But granting that clear and well-defined 
powers are delegated, the natural question arises : To what 
authority are these local bodies to be responsible ? In look- 
ing at this question it is hardly conceivable that any con- 



330 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

elusion can be come to but this, that they must be under 
the revisionary control of the county or city corporation. In 
deciding this question it is to the interest of the whole 
city or county that no question should arise between these 
bodies, and that nothing should come in the way of a uniform 
standard of excellence being accepted. It is quite clear that 
to do this the revising power must be made at the centre, 
but this fact does not in any way necessarily lead to officious 
intermeddling in local affairs by the municipal authority. 
The power of the local body should be absolute within its 
well-defined sphere of action, and it is only limited in this 
case as in the others by that fundamental principle which 
says that no man or corporate body shall have such freedom as 
will, in the exercise thereof, interfere with that of other men, 
or other corporations. Let us attempt to apply this. The 
District Councils will, no doubt, have control over the local 
thoroughfares. So long, then, as a reasonable standard of 
excellence is maintained, no central body can have a right to 
interfere in this district matter. But if these thoroughfares, 
which are for the use of the whole people and not only for 
the district, are so badly kept that they impede the traffic 
passing through the district, then it is obvious the District 
Council is, through its negligence, curtailing the liberty of 
other localities. It would, in such a case as this, be the duty 
of the central authority to enforce proper fulfilment of their 
duty by the local body. It will be seen that I have taken 
for example the simplest possible case, but if the principle 
which is the moving one in this matter is applied to other 
and more complex cases, it will be perfectly easy to arrive at 
the just mean between local and central authority. 

To again take this simple example and see how it would 
work in the case in which the district was a local co-ordinate 
authority, not under the revising control of the central 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 331 

authority. The only redress which could be obtained in a 
matter of this kind, supposing that the inhabitants of the 
district were indifferent in this matter, would be through 
either the Local Government Board or through Parliament. 
Now the former office has and can have no especial know- 
ledge of the requirements of the whole city. It is an office 
dealing with the whole Local Government of the country. 
Its methods are admittedly both tedious and bureaucratic, 
and were it to be enlarged almost indefinitely, it could 
never accomplish, even imperfectly, the immense labour 
which would be by this arrangement thrown upon it. 

Were Parliament itself to be directly a Court of Appeal 
in such matters, all the advantages obtained by a system of 
local government in relieving it of tiresome details would 
disappear. The reasons above given are, moreover, merely 
inconveniences of detail in administration ; they leave alto- 
gether on one side the fact that by the proper graduation of 
authorities alone can any system of government be carried 
on. Such methods are, in fact, sins against a logical and 
responsible form of administration, and involve the happy- 
go-lucky ways of old. 

These were well enough when through want of quick 
transport localities were separated one from the other by 
much greater barriers than now exist, and consequently the 
want of uniformity in administration was both much less 
noticeable and less detrimental than now. 

It will be seen from the above that no subdivision of 
powers need tend to confusion, if the principles of discipline 
and order are well observed in their creation, and if we do 
not lose sight of the fundamental principle that the bounds 
of liberty of action in local authorities are the freedom of 
action of other local bodies, and the general uniformity of 
the whole. 



332 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

Monopolies ', or other Quasi- Governmental Corporations. — 
This question will be found to be of much greater im- 
portance and of much greater complexity than has been 
comprehended in the recent discussions of this subject. 

It is of first importance to emphasise the fact that all 
companies which have been given the sole right to supply 
commodities to the citizens are indirectly civil servants of 
the Government. They are, therefore, under the control of 
the Central Authority and directly responsible to it. But 
they are not, however, all worthy of equal consideration. 
The question what companies should be so privileged is one 
of extreme fascination, but unfortunately it is not now a 
practical subject of inquiry, because in the rough-and-ready 
way common in all Parliamentary procedure certain corpo- 
rations have been given these advantages without reference 
to expediency ; and without grave injustice these cannot 
be withdrawn, or, if withdrawn, the claims of the present 
privileged companies must and should be met in a spirit of 
equity and conciliation. It is, however, necessary to classify 
the companies which have the sole privilege of supplying to 
the citizens certain commodities, so that we may rightly 
apprise their respective labours in the public service. 

Before entering into this work of classification, I cannot 
refrain from exposing the very false philosophy which often 
is mixed up in this matter. It is very common to hear it 
said, especially by open or disguised Collectivists, that the 
State has a right to provide the people at cost price with 
necessities. Now on this word, unless you insist on its clear 
definition, is based an immensity of false reasoning. It is 
obvious to any one considering the subject that a necessity 
is but a relative term. It varies, not, as most others, from 
century to century, but from day to day. Bread on Monday 
may be a necessity ; on Tuesday, when the citizen has de- 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 333 

veloped an acute form of influenza, port wine and chicken 
may become necessities. It is, therefore, advisable to dis- 
miss this term from discussion as too undefined, because 
too variable, for scientific use. To take the place of this 
word, I shall be obliged, therefore, to substitute another. 

Let us then substitute 'Municipal Imperative' for necessity, 
defining clearly what is implied by the former phrase. The 
imperative commodity is one which, if withdrawn from 
the use of a citizen, is liable to cause through its with- 
drawal not only harm to the citizen from whom it is with- 
drawn, but, through disease or other disaster, danger to the 
community in which he lives. 

This is the real point for the consideration of the muni- 
cipal authority, because its business is especially to preserve 
from harm the community over which it rules, and no inter- 
ference in such matters can be, or should be, considered as 
an interference with Liberty as already defined. 

The liberty of the subject, as before enunciated, is limited 
only when he through his actions interferes with his neigh- 
bours' freedom. This cannot be repeated too often. 

Now let us consider the Municipal Monopolies as we 
know them : — 

1st. Water Companies. 

2nd. Gas and other Lighting Companies. 

3rd. Transport Companies : Tramways, Canals, etc. 

It is clear, if the specialists are to be trusted, that an ade- 
quate supply of water to the houses of the citizens is a 
sanitary requirement. Later medical science has shown that 
nearly all the most distressing and virulent diseases are 
created ah initio from dirt. Dr. Roose says that 'any 
sudden outbreak of disease in an epidemic form is almost 
certainly attributable to the water supply.' This being so, 



334 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

the cutting off of water from a house is quite obviously a 
municipal crime, because it endangers the health of the com- 
munity through the withdrawal of a commodity necessary for 
its health. 

A recent case is very much to the point. A woman 
considered that she should not be charged for a fixed bath in 
her house. She refused to pay the additional charge for 
this luxury, though she paid her ordinary water rate. The 
Water Company promptly cut off the water supply of the 
whole house. This exceedingly ill-advised action of the 
Company may lead to a complete revision of the powers 
conferred upon the monopolised concerns. 

But to return. Water is clearly an imperative com- 
modity, and must be placed in our list as such. Gas, it 
appears, is partially so. Gas, or light at any rate, in the 
streets has now become an imperative commodity. The 
withdrawal of the proper illumination of our highroads and 
by-roads would inevitably lead to a great increase in crime. 
To preserve the liberty of the citizen, light then appears to 
be of first importance, and may justly be considered under 
Imperative Monopolies. 

Gas and light, however, within the four walls of a house 
do not seem to come under the category. People can do 
without gas ; many do every night without light of any 
kind ; some prefer other illuminations. It is clear, there- 
fore, that intermural gas is not a necessity, and by its 
withdrawal no harm to the community need be anticipated. 
It is evident, therefore, that gas or lighting of this kind 
comes under the classification of municipal non-imperatives. 
The same may be said of Tramways, Canal Companies, etc. 

These no man will justly elevate to the position of essen- 
tials. A tramway is a convenience ; if the tramway is not 
there, you either walk or take a cab. It is not too much 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 335 

to say that should every employe in the tramway, omnibus, 
and railway companies in London strike to-morrow, no 
permanent inconvenience need be anticipated. Business men 
would get up a little earlier, that is all. So without 
further dalliance we may assign these transport companies 
to the non-imperative class. 

Now let us place the monopolised companies according 
to rank. 

Imperatives — 
Water. 
Gas or other lighting in thoroughfares, 

Non-Imperatives — 
Gas in houses. 
Tramways. 
Canals, 1 etc. 

Having this definite classification we may naturally con- 
sider how far the Central Authority should make itself 
responsible for these present monopoly companies by under- 
taking the supply itself. It is only just to say that the 
present writer believes that it properly belongs to the 
Municipality to undertake the work included under Impera- 
tives. It would be tedious to argue this question fully, but 
by stating one fact it will become more apparent what is 
meant in enforcing this duty. I have quoted the case of 
a person, the water supply of whose house was stopped 
because she refused to pay what the Company deemed 
she ought to pay. Now, either this Company very much 
misunderstood its position as a public functionary in this 

1 It will be observed that in considering this question I have taken as an 
example the special case of London, because nearly all the more difficult 
problems are, in the metropolis, more accentuated than elsewhere. The 
principles, however, laid down are equally applicable to every city and 
county in the United Kingdom, 



336 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

matter, or else the bonds of authority were very consider- 
ably weakened through their devolution to a monopolv 
Company. It is possible that the water authority in question 
merely misunderstood its duty; but, however it may be, 
the right of such a corporation to withdraw water from a 
house for any cause whatsoever should distinctly be for- 
bidden. In this case, if the Central Authority had been 
directly responsible for the supply, they would have had 
ample means of securing their rates without recourse to such 
a pernicious action. They would have claimed on behalf of 
the Crown the sum due, and would have entered as first 
creditor. The Water Company being, in the eyes of the law, 
merely a money-getting concern, can claim alone as an ordi- 
nary creditor, and as such, obliged to take ordinary business 
precautions to ensure repayment. 

It should readily be seen by this example that for public 
convenience it would have been wiser from the first to 
have placed the distribution of water to the citizens directly 
in the hands of the Municipal Authority. In London, for 
example, this has not been done, owing no doubt to the 
public convenience at the time, and no less to a want of 
appreciation of the importance of this subject. The supply 
of water for London has been relegated to private under- 
takings, and it cannot be withdrawn without either a vast 
expenditure of money or unfair interference with the rights 
of property. London is supplied by, in all, nine companies. 
Now, in considering the advantages of relieving these under- 
takings of their public responsibilities two very important 
conditions must be considered. Firstly, is the water sup- 
plied of that quality which it is right to demand on account 
of its importance as a health-giving commodity, and is the 
supply sufficient for the increased demand in future years ? 
Secondly, is it supplied at the lowest possible cost to the 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 337 

citizens? Having carefully gone into this question with 
the aid of such technical literature as is obtainable, and 
with the Blue Book before me relating to it, I cannot but 
be convinced that on the whole the water is of sufficient 
excellence in London to warrant our dismissing this subject 
from our thoughts. I am aware that with the consensus 
of expert opinion in favour of this view (Bischoff, Roose, 
etc.), there is yet one strong opponent to it in Dr. Frank- 
land ; but as his opposition is directed chiefly to one or two 
companies, and as we have the fact before us that of all 
cities of first rank in respect to population, London shows a 
considerably lower death rate than any other, I think it is 
but fair to assume that we have but little to complain of in 
this respect. 

It is not quite so clear that the supply of good water is 
sufficient to meet the demands of the rapid expansion of 
London for the next half century, but seeing that the 
evidence given before the Royal Commission was in favour 
of the belief that for at least thirty years London may count 
on having, from her present sources, sufficient of this neces- 
sary commodity, I may take it that we are in no danger of 
the supply being inadequate for all present and probable 
future demands. Nevertheless, the quality of the water 
supplied by the different companies is unequal, and it should 
be certainly the business of the Municipal Authority to 
bring the lagging companies up to the standard of their 
brother monopolies. 

Now, as to the price paid for water by the inhabitants. 
There is but little doubt that they are paying too much for 
this commodity. There are two causes for this. In the 
first place, there is a very great waste of water in London. 
The average supplied per head to the inhabitants of this 
city is daily twenty-eight gallons. Supposing that half this 



338 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

quantity is utilised for general purposes, such as for fire 
engines, street cleaning, and the hundred and one uses 
which water is put to, yet it leaves every man, woman and 
infant with his or her fourteen gallons a day. Now this 
seems rather more than is necessary even for the require- 
ments of a Roman of the Augustan period, and when we 
consider that all of this water equally for public and 
domestic use, is filtered to that condition of excellence 
required for drinking purposes, it seems to the ordinary 
observer somewhat of a waste of energy. The question, 
however, is of great difficulty, and whether two qualities of 
water can be supplied to meet the varied requirements must 
be solved by engineers rather than by medical experts. 

The second cause for the higher price paid for water in 
London than is paid elsewhere, is the fact that the Water 
Companies have been constantly put to very great expense 
over a period of fifty years in matters of legal charges. 
Owing to their public capacity as the monopolist distri- 
butors of water, they naturally have been the object of much 
adverse criticism both in Parliament and out of it. The 
consequence is that Pelion has been piled upon Ossa in the 
matter of legal expenses. For all these the ratepayer is now 
suffering. It is, therefore, not quite fair to condemn the 
companies for an expenditure which in no wise can be 
described as of their making. 

I have gone into the question of Water perhaps at too 
great length, but its immense significance must be my excuse. 

It has been seen that monopolist companies can be 
logically divided into two classes. How should they be 
dealt with by the Central authority ? If we had the power 
to begin afresh, no doubt it would be necessary to advise the 
carrying out of the supply of Municipal imperative com- 
modities to the citizens by the Central authority itself, 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 339 

while leaving to individual enterprise those non-imperative. 
But as we have seen that the difficulties in the way of under- 
taking such work now are very great, and the methods of 
avoiding injustice almost an insuperable obstacle, it may 
be wise now to leave the work of distribution in the hands 
of the water companies. But this can be only done with 
safety so long as the authorities recognise very plainly that 
their duties in respect to Water are quite different from those 
in respect to Gas, etc. Most of the evil trend of thought of 
late towards stultifying Collectivism has been caused through 
this want of clear distinction. This has led many otherwise 
clear-headed men astray, and, unless this distinction is compre- 
hended, there is every chance that the numerous class whose 
avocations do not permit them to study carefully these 
subjects will be more and more drawn in the direction of 
Municipal Socialism. Therefore, I do not feel that the time 
devoted in this chapter to the study of this subject has been 
at all wasted. 

The Duties of the Municipal Authority generally reviewed. 
— Let us now see what function in the homogeny of the 
Imperial State the Municipal Corporation performs. It 
has, as is obvious, deputed powers of government in all those 
matters which, while being essential, are yet not definitely 
Imperial. It is, therefore, in these matters the representa- 
tive of the sovereign authority. The Municipality is not, 
as some ignorantly hold, a small self-governed community 
within the State, it is an Imperially-governed section of it, 
certain duties especially belonging to local administration 
having been relegated to it. 

It is necessary to refer to this point on account of the 
confusion which is displayed by many in duly apprising the 
respective value of appointments under the Municipality 



340 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

and those under the Imperial Authority, and it should, 
moreover, especially be borne in mind on account of local 
policy. The Municipal State has no mandate to adopt a 
line of action inharmonious with that one which is adopted 
by the body of which it forms a part. It is within these 
limits that it can act, not beside them. 

Now arises a question of importance. How will it be 
possible to prevent Local bodies from adopting unwise, un- 
tried, and unauthorised, legislation ? The British Empire, 
it is admitted by all, has been built up by statesmen who 
have understood the value of cultivating the initiative of the 
individual. The people, on the other hand, heretofore have 
had their own views of what independence they should justly 
claim, and were well able to preserve their rights and to 
defend them. The Collectivists now propose to convert 
them into a nation of bureau-driven slaves and workhouse 
pensioners. The whole intention of past legislation has been 
directed towards preserving the freedom of the individual. 
It is clear, therefore, that this being the distinctly-marked 
policy of the past, a policy, moreover, which has led to 
phenomenal success, it cannot be part of the powers con- 
ferred on the corporation of Stoke Pogis, or of Stowe in 
the Hole, of its own initiative to upset these fundamental 
State principles. 

Stoke Pogis, like other corporations, must grow with the 
Nation's growth, progress with the Nation's success, and 
develop along the lines of the Nation's policy. It cannot be 
allowed that the cock-sparrow assertiveness of unformed and 
local-centred minds should strike out for itself a new and 
untried policy. Wiser heads than those likely to be found 
in Stoke Pogis, if a new line is to be adopted, must weigh 
and consider its advantages and its defects, and deliberately 
accept its direction. Burke has told us that 4 every project 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 341 

of a material change of policy in a government so compli- 
cated as ours, combined at the same time with external 
circumstances still more complicated, is a matter full of 
difficulties in which a considerate man will not be too ready 
to decide, a prudent too ready to undertake, or an honest 
man too ready to promise."' 

Therefore it is certain that if every municipality, however 
minor its powers, however sentimental and ignorant its 
perso7inel, is to be permitted to beg the question of change 
by inconsiderately adopting a line of its own making, local 
government will certainly lead to the wildest chaos ever 
heard of in the annals of mankind. To prevent these evils 
arising out of the sub-division of power, it is necessary that 
each of the local bodies shall be under the revising authority 
of the one next above it. 

In effect it is within the limits of national policy that the 
municipal authority has power, not outside them. 

Now in respect to the persons properly to be entrusted 
with the management of municipal affairs. As forming a 
part, though more or less a minor one, of the Government 
of the Country, it is of the greatest value to choose as repre- 
sentatives men of independent position, unspotted honour, 
and good local position, possessing time to devote to the 
affairs of the State. Frequently it is said that a business 
or a professional man would be the best candidate for such 
posts as these. I do not believe it ; because, if you consult 
the men engaged in these pursuits, whose position and whose 
knowledge would really be an acquisition to any State Coun- 
cil, they will tell you almost in these words that they have 
not the time. The best of business and professional men 
you will not get, but the worst of these classes will readily 
come forward. Either the man who does not make his 
business succeed, or he who through a public position wishes 



34& THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

to make its success greater, will readily answer your call in 
the hope that out of a long-suffering public he may be able 
to get at least some material benefit. This kind of business 
man should be very carefully avoided. Moreover all busi- 
ness men are specialists in respect to their trade. They have 
all the virtues and vices of the specialist, but the specialist 
mind is the very one not required at the councils of a Muni- 
cipality. It judges the world through spectacles of its own; 
the causes which affect its special study are to it the great 
causes of the world ; it has, in fact, not generally the great 
gift of estimating phenomena according to their real propor- 
tion. He should be chosen to represent the people ' who, in 
the common intercourse of life, showed he regarded somebody 
besides himself, so that when he came to act in a public 
situation, he might probably consult some other interest 
than his own.' 

The Local authority acting on behalf of the State must 
see that the citizen is not hampered in his freedom by other 
citizens or by other classes of citizens. It should direct his 
mind through instruction, teaching it c nothing mean.' It 
should act as the trustee of the whole people as regards 
finance, and the guardian of the whole people as regards 
mental development. What is charity and benevolence in 
the individual is crime and injustice in a government, as I 
have said before, because the funds which the latter allocates 
to the benefit of an individual or a class is compulsorily 
collected by it from the whole people, and cannot honestly 
be expended for such a purpose except by the consent of 
every single person from whom it was obtained. 

Finally, the admission of this power of expenditure would 
infallibly lead to corruption of the gravest kind, especially 
in these days of wide suffrage. 

We have seen that the Local authority is not in the 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 343 

position to perform its own work, but it is in a position to 
see that its work is properly carried through by the con- 
tractors to whom the work is entrusted. More energy dis- 
played in this direction would be exceedingly well spent. 
When on the subject of the possibilities of Municipal dis- 
honesty it is impossible to pass it by without referring to a 
recent work on Chicago. To obtain the right of way over 
a public street, a railway company paid £5000 to each 
of the four aldermen who voted for the bill, and one official 
received no less than i?20,000 {Chicago Record, 19th 
February, 1894). 

I do not suppose we shall arrive at this magnificent point 
of corruption j ust yet, but it is not impossible. If we are 
not a little more careful in the selection of our representa- 
tives, and in their methods of spending public funds, we 
may have a Chicago in London just as we have had a 
Venice and a Constantinople, only it will not be domiciled 
at ' Olympia.' 

With regard to the question of improvements, such, for 
instance, as the opening of Parks, the widening and beauti- 
fying of streets and the like, it is of course much more 
difficult to adjust the line of policy. It is clear that such 
measures should be progressively adopted in proportion to 
the material progress of the community. There should be 
no unwise adoption of these essentially good things without 
reference to such improvement, because it is of first import- 
ance not to increase the rates beyond what is esteemed right 
by the inhabitants generally. It may be said truly, every 
increase of rates injures Trade, by the insecurity which it 
inspires in respect to permanent investments. The injury is 
none the less real because it is below the surface. It will be 
seen that the profits of an undertaking, calculated on the 
basis of the lesser rate, become delusive after the new rate 



344 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

is imposed, and consequently it becomes at every turn of 
the municipal screw less possible to adjust prospectively 
expenditure to income. The result is that innumerable 
traders, both retail and wholesale, whose financial existence 
has just been on the right side of insolvency, fail, and con- 
sequently their employees are thrown out of work. Trade 
becomes disorganised and capital is frightened away from it. 
We cannot be too often reminded of the fact that capital 
is the vital element of the body politic, just as the blood 
is of the individual body. Vampirish action politically has 
the same effect as it has individually, it produces lethargy, 
ending, if continued, in death. Suck the capital of the com- 
munity through ill-advised taxation and you weaken its 
energy and that of the whole people. 

From this it will be seen that by the most careful adjust- 
ment of means to ends alone can permanent improvement 
be obtained, and it should be the business of all true patriots 
to see that the Municipal funds are expended gradually 
for the improvement of the lives of the people, and not, as 
is now too common, spasmodically and without reference 
to the general development of the community. 

It has been said that power must eventually be centred 
in one authority. All collateral authorities must become 
unified within the Parish, the District or the County, or else 
Local Administration must end in a wild delirium of divergent 
powers and interests. What the Central authority has to 
see to is, that while assimilating the various powers, it yet 
preserves the traditions of the Municipality. An excellent 
example of the possibilities in this respect may be seen in 
the two rival authorities, the London County Council and 
the City Corporation. The former has power over Greater 
London, and certain powers over the City, which powers, 
from their inextricable confusion with those of the City 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 345 

Corporation, are beyond my comprehension ; the latter has 
powers over the City proper. The former, full of youthful 
energy, it may be, yet has no traditions; it has not the 
cement, in fact, which binds a City together; the latter, being 
the immemorial representative of London, has great and 
glorious traditions, but outside the walls no powers. The 
ordinary man would say : What an excellent opportunity for 
a compromise ! Nevertheless, owing to the ignorant energy 
of the one and the ignorant quiescence of the other, no via 
media has been found, and the two corporations remain to 
this day in different and opposing camps. It is obvious 
that by entering into friendly intercourse the traditions and 
the rights of property may be preserved, while London may 
in the future be looked upon as one whole, with the traditions 
no whit impaired through wise expansion. Greed on the 
one hand, and fear on the other, have unfortunately prevented 
this consummation. 

It has been seen that it is desirable to more plainly re- 
gulate the manner in which Local Governments shall have 
intercourse with the Imperial Parliament. A permanent 
committee of both Houses might very well be a means of 
placing this intercourse on a sound footing. That the 
present system of indiscriminate and unrepresentative appeal 
leads to no little waste of public time must be admitted. 
The Municipal body, on the other hand, must act as the 
guide of those bodies below it, not intermeddling with 
their affairs, but bringing that reasonable pressure to bear 
when necessary, which should make for uniformity of ex- 
cellence in administration. It should especially see that one 
District Council shall not, through officiousness or ignorance, 
act in a manner detrimental to the whole body or to any 
other District. Above all, it is only by a definite and well- 
understood chain of authority binding together all the various 



346 THE COMING INDIVIDUALISM 

Local Councils, from the highest to the lowest, that we can 
hope to avoid chaotic confusion. 

I have now done with this subject, and it is only right at 
this juncture to say that, while dealing in an unbiassed 
manner with the subject of Municipal Government as it stands 
to-day, and while attempting to indicate a plan in which 
the varied authorities may act together harmoniously, yet 
I am not at all hopeful of the ultimate effect of Democracy 
based on per head election. That under any circumstances 
it is an experiment, untried in its present form, cannot too 
often be repeated. Nevertheless, though not hopeful, it has 
appeared right to some of us to enter the lists, not with 
the object of making things worse, as some do, but rather 
with the intention, however humble may be our part, 
of making things better. Now, it may be asked : Why are 
you afraid for the success of Government by this form of 
Democracy? To be candid, because it must directly lead 
to Class Legislation. We all know that in an Autocracy 
the philosophic Sovereign, if he is to govern well, must look 
without favour and without prejudice at all classes in the 
community. He must be of none of them, and in his deal- 
ings must so act that he adjusts the interests of his subjects 
by allowing each class of them, and each individual in each 
class, full and fair play. So in the Government of the 
Many, this should be the sole aim of the governing body. 
But is it so ? Are not the classes who interest the repre- 
sentatives only those which for one reason or another can 
give them the greatest number of votes ? Assuredly this 
must be admitted. Heads are counted, brains are not 
weighed, and consequently those classes counting the largest 
number of heads, composed, as they necessarily are, of those 
occupied in the lowest and least intellectual employments, 
command the undivided attention of the Legislature. Men- 



MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 347 

tal capacity and its result, capitalised energy, are at a 
discount. The State directs its attention to taking from 
the rich in money or brains and giving to the poor, with the 
obvious result of driving away capital from the trade of the 
country, and thereby increasing the poverty it had ignorantly 
hoped to diminish. 

In spite of the fact of the puny attempts of ' Demos ' 
to repeal the unchangeable Laws of Nature, there is yet 
a hope for him. One of the chief principles which Demos 
lays down is that in Representative Government all interests 
should be consulted. Let him act up to this principle and 
give up the puerile game of counting heads, a game, by the 
way, more suggestive of second childhood than of early 
vigour, and let him count interests, looking at each with an 
equal eye and well-balanced mind. He will then at least 
give his cause fair play. It is on the hope that he may be 
made to see this that I rely. 

In my remarks on this subject I must repudiate in advance 
the designation of pessimist. I am optimist a outrance. 
But my optimism does not lead me to the conceited belief 
of some that the specific civilisation under which we live is 
the ultimate form which civilisation will take. There will 
be ups and downs in the future as in the past, but it is only 
true patriotism to keep ourselves to the fore as long as 
possible by adherence to those laws which Nature says must 
be obeyed if advance is desired. That we are now in a fair 
way to this end — credat Judceus Apella. 



Printed by T. and A. Constable, Printers to Her Majesty 
at the Edinburgh University Press 



7 



SEP 26 1903 



